The district court summarises what was said at the preparatory hearing. This includes, amongst other things, a timetable from now until the main hearing, which is scheduled to begin on 28 September 2027, exactly one year from now.
The state responds to Aurora's response to the state's defence. Among other things, the state argues that this case requires a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Aurora responds to the arguments raised by the government in its defence. Our conclusion is that the government is overlooking the core of its climate obligations and that the aspects of climate law it highlights are therefore not the most central ones. This means that the defence has not provided relevant information to assess whether the government is fulfilling its obligation to protect human rights.
The state has responded to Aurora’s second lawsuit. The state agrees that the Aurora case should be tried on its merits, but argues that Sweden’s climate efforts are sufficient to protect human rights.
States must do their fair share of the global climate action needed to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. This report shows how much Sweden must reduce its emissions to be in line with its fair share.
After finishing our first case, Aurora sues the state for climate justice a second time. Since we sued for the first time, the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Swedish Supreme Court have confirmed that states are obliged to protect human rights from the consequences of the climate crisis.
The court of appeal decided Aurora should pay the state's legal costs in case 1.0. Aurora appeals.
Court of appeal says Aurora should pay the state's legal costs.
The District Court said we should pay the state's legal costs. We appeal.
After it not being possible to adjust the action, Aurora withdraws it.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, Aurora requests to enter the proceedings as an association and adjust the claims. Here is an annex with the adjusted claims.
The Swedish Supreme Court decides that Aurora's case cannot be tried in Swedish courts, but does not rule out that a similar climate case can be tried.
The Institute for Human Rights is allowed to give its opinion on whether Aurora's case can and should be tried. The Supreme Court will take their opinion into account.
The State argues that Aurora's case cannot and should not be allowed to proceed.
The Institute for Human Rights intervenes in the case to the Supreme Court, and argues that the plaintiffs in the Aurora case have standing and that the case should be tried.
In its decision on leave to appeal on April 25, the Supreme Court ordered Aurora to make our final arguments around the elevated question of whether a climate case like Aurora can and should be tried in Swedish courts. This statement makes those arguments, based on legal developments over the past six months.
The Supreme Court grants leave to appeal for the elevated question. They will now decide whether a climate case like Aurora can and should be tried in Swedish courts.
Nacka district court approves Aurora and the state's suggestion that the question of whether Auroras's case can be tried be raised to the supreme court.
Both parties have made it clear that they are open to raising the procedural issue of whether the Aurora case is admissible or not to the Supreme Court. On 21 September, the state proposed a question for the Supreme court. This is Aurora's counter proposal.
In the State's response to Aurora's lawsuit and Aurora's response to the response, both parties signalled that they are open to elevating the procedural issue of whether the Aurora case is admissible or not to the Supreme Court. This is the state's statement on this matter, where they make a proposal for the question to be elevated to the Supreme Court.
On the 28th of August, Aurora responds to the state's response and announces our views of the state's motion to dismiss.
On June 21st 2023 the state submitted their response to Auroras lawsuit, in which they argue that the suit should be thrown out, arguing that Auroras claims are not allowed.
Nacka district court announces they will hear the case and that the Aurora lawsuit will be tried in a court of law. The state now receives three months to respond to Auroras claims.
On the 25th of November, over 600 children and youth sued the state through the Aurora case. The document below is an adjusted document with edits made later than November 25th.
Denna rapport från Climate Analytics är bilaga till Auroras stämningsansökan. Den är författad av ledande klimatforskare och redogör för beräkningar av Sveriges rättvisa andel av de globala utsläppsminskningarna. Se avsnitt 4.2.5 i Auroras stämningsansökan för en redogörelse för denna rapport och dess innebörd.
25 november 2022, fyra dagar efter sista svarsdag, inkom ett svar från Klimat- och miljöminister Romina Pourmokhtari på det brev som Aurora skickade 7 november.
On the 7th of November 2022, Aurora sent a second letter to the State. It was a follow-up to the letter sent in May to the then government. The letter clarified Aurora's claims, i.e. the demands Aurora is making on the State in the lawsuit. The letter contained a final ultimatum: if an acceptable response is not received by 21 November, Aurora will sue the State. The letter was sent to Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, head of the future Ministry of Climate and Economic Affairs Ebba Busch, Minister for Climate and the Environment Romina Pourmokhtari and Chancellor of Justice Mari Heidenborg.
On the 10th of May, Aurora sent a letter to the state containing our demands for sufficient climate action
The response was received on Wednesday, June 1, 2022 from Minister for Climate and the Environment Annika Strandhäll.
Aurora sent these demands to Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, Minister for Climate and the Environment Annika Strandhäll and Chancellor of Justice Mari Heidenborg on 10 May 2022. In the letter, we make clear our ambition to take the state to court if it does not pursue a climate policy in line with justice and the best available science.