Diffuse, Fragmented and Collective Interests in Swedish Environmental and Climate Civil Litigation

This article examines how Swedish procedural law accommodates collective environmental and climate claims and how European law has influenced access to justice. It analyzes two recent Swedish cases: the PFAS Case concerning contaminated drinking water and the first Climate Case, in which the Swedish state was sued for violating inter alia the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to take adequate measures to prevent climate change. It is argued that, although Swedish law formally provides several avenues for collective litigation, the practical significance of group proceedings have remained limited. Instead, European legal developments have strengthened the role of environmental organizations as representatives of collective environmental and climate interests. The Swedish Supreme Court’s handling of the Climate Case reflects this trend by favoring organizational standing over individual group actions. The PFAS litigation illustrates that even successful environmental lawsuits face significant procedural obstacles. The paper concludes that, despite expanded opportunities for collective action, uncertainty regarding standing and litigation risks continues to limit effective access to justice, indicating a need for further procedural reform.