Multiple organizations challenge Petteri Orpo’s government in Finland over climate law violations

In October 2022, environmental organizations took Sanna Marin’s government to court over insufficient climate actions, but the Supreme Administrative Court did not examine the case. Now, multiple human rights and environmental organizations have challenged Petteri Orpo’s government for allegedly violating climate law, and this time, the lawsuit has better prospects of success.

According to Kai Kokko, a professor of environmental law at the University of Helsinki, significant changes have occurred since the Supreme Administrative Court’s previous ruling. He highlights three key developments:

1. **Change in Judicial Precedent**: In its 2023 ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court hinted that the government’s inaction on climate issues could indicate a failure in making necessary decisions to meet climate law obligations. This suggests that civil society organizations may be able to pursue complaints and reach resolutions more effectively.

2. **Development of Climate Law**: At the time of the earlier judgment, Finland’s climate law did not provide the same rights for appeals as it does now. The updated law includes provisions specifically outlining the circumstances under which changes can be sought, including recognition that conservation organizations have the right to appeal.

3. **Significant Ruling from the European Court of Human Rights**: In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in a climate case against Switzerland, establishing a precedent indicating that climate change threatens human rights. Finnish organizations are now invoking human rights in their lawsuit against the government, contrasting with the earlier case that focused on the lack of measures in land use.

The new lawsuit has been filed by various organizations, including the Finnish Nature Conservation Association, Greenpeace, and Amnesty International, arguing that the government’s inaction jeopardizes multiple provisions of the climate law and infringes on fundamental rights. Kokko believes that should the Supreme Administrative Court examine this case, it could compel the government to undertake specific actions to address climate challenges.