In-Depth: Finnish Government Faces New Climate Lawsuit

Environmental and human rights groups sued the Finnish government for climate inaction. They argue that Finland's climate action plan violates the Climate Act and fails to meet national and international climate targets. This legal analysis unpacks the context and legal argumentation of the case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the issues at stake.

On 22 August 2024, several environmental and human rights groups announced that they filed another climate lawsuit against the Finnish Government over its climate inaction. The groups argue that the latest Finnish climate action plan is in breach of the Climate Act. As such, Finland is failing to meet its climate targets under national law, and its climate obligations under international law. The lawsuit was filed by the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, Greenpeace Norden, Amnesty International Finland, Grandparents for Climate, the Finnish Nature League, and the Finnish Sámi Youth.

Context 

According to the most recent European Climate Action Progress Report for Finland, in 2022, Finland’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were approximately 45.8 MtCO2-eq, marking a 4.3% decrease from 2021. Key contributors to emissions in Finland include the energy sector, industry, and transport. A more recent report by Etla Economic Research estimates that GHG emissions in Finland are expected to decrease at an annual rate of 4% from 2023 to 2027. At this rate, achieving carbon neutrality by 2035, as is Finland’s target, would be virtually impossible. Especially the land-use sector, which previously was a carbon sink, is expected to contribute minimally to carbon reduction and has even started emitting carbon since 2021 due to increased logging and agricultural emissions. Despite some positive developments, such as increased production of emission-free electricity and a decrease in fossil fuel use in transport, Finland’s overall progress remains inadequate. These issues with land use were also cited by the plaintiffs in their press release.

Legal Framework

The Finland Climate Act (423/2022) implements the country’s climate policy. Its objective is to achieve a net zero balance of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions through removals by 2035. The Climate Act targets a reduction of emissions from effort-sharing and emissions trading sectors by at least 60% by 2030, 80% by 2040, and 90% to 95% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. The Act also highlights the need for national measures to enhance climate resilience and manage climate risks. Explicit reference is made to the promotion of sustainable development, climate justice, and supporting the indigenous Sámi people in preserving their culture. §16.1 and §17 of the Climate Act outline the monitoring and revision of climate policy plans. The Government is under an obligation to track the implementation of climate policy plans in order to make sure they continue to meet climate targets and obligations, using annual greenhouse gas data and policy reports. If necessary, the Government will revise the plans to address additional measures.

Under the Land use, land-use change and forestry Regulation (LULUCF), EU Member States are required to set and meet binding national targets for carbon removal in the land use sector.  For 2021-2025, Member States must ensure that there are no net emissions from the LULUCF sector. If emissions occur, they must either be offset by additional measures or by purchasing LULUCF units from other countries. For the period 2026-2030, the LULUCF Regulation sets an EU-wide net removals target, aiming for a 15% increase in removals.

Argumentation in the Finnish Climate Lawsuit

Finland’s Legal Obligations

The plaintiffs claim that the Government has violated its duty under the Climate Act to revise the climate policy plans when it becomes apparent that Finland is failing to meet its targets.

Moreover, according to Finland’s 2024 Annual Climate Report, Finland is unlikely to meet its obligations under the LULUCF Regulation. The present pace of emissions reductions is inadequate to achieve the 2030 emissions reduction target established by the Climate Act. Yet, despite this finding, the plaintiffs argue in their lawsuit that the government is not set to update the outdated and underfunded land use sector’s climate plan. The 2024 Report also indicates that Finland is not on track to meet its transport sector targets.

Finland Supreme Court Precedent

The case relies on an earlier ruling by Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court in June 2023. The Supreme Administrative Court is Finland’s highest court for administrative law cases. It is in charge of reviewing administrative decisions by the authorities, to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected in administrative matters.

This previous case concerned a climate lawsuit filed by Greenpeace Norden and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, which argued that the government failed to take necessary measures under the Climate Act to address the collapse of the carbon sink and ensure Finland meets its carbon neutrality goals. The groups maintained that the Finnish government’s inaction is demonstrated in the 2023 climate annual report and is compromising the fundamental rights of the parties involved.

The Supreme Administrative Court did not review the case. It stated that the submission of the annual climate report to Parliament in itself was not an administrative decision subject to appeal. The Court nevertheless provided insight into the conditions required for it to accept a case: (i) if the government’s action would contradict the Climate Act or (ii) if the government’s action shows a lack of intent to timely and adequately achieve the targets of the Climate Act. The plaintiff groups here are arguing that the government’s inaction is directly in violation of the Climate Act (i), and should therefore be reviewed by the Supreme Administrative Court.

Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

The Climate Act is unique in its explicit inclusion of rights for the indigenous Sámi people in relation to the climate policy. According to the plaintiffs, the Sámi’s homelands in the Arctic are disproportionately affected by climate change. Climate policies implemented under the Climate Act must “contribute to ensuring the prerequisites for the Sámi people to maintain and develop their own language and culture” (Section 2). Accordingly, the plaintiff groups argue that by violating the Climate Act, the Finnish government also violated the rights of the Sámi people.

European Human Rights Precedent

Reference is made to the landmark European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling earlier this year, in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland. The environmental groups argue that Finland, as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, must bear its share of the responsibility. The case before the ECtHR involved a complaint over the Swiss authorities’ insufficient action on climate change. The ECtHR recognised that the Convention protects individuals from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being, and quality of life. The ECtHR found that Switzerland had failed to comply with its positive obligations regarding climate change. Here, the plaintiff groups argue that Finland must adhere to this principle and fulfil its obligations under the Convention.

Overall, the groups argue that Finland’s government should implement additional measures to comply with its legal obligations under the Climate Act, the Constitution, and international (human rights) obligations.

Comment

The relevance of this case cannot be overstated. It builds upon critical precedent in both national and international context. The key legal challenge will be whether the Supreme Administrative Court is willing to accept the argument that the government’s inaction constitutes a breach of the Climate Act. The Climate Act imposes a clear obligation to monitor and revise policy plans if targets are not being met. This, paired with the Court’s previous ruling, which allowed for judicial review only in cases of clear violations or a demonstrated lack of intent to meet climate goals, provides a potential opening. The case places the judiciary in a position to confront the adequacy of government action in meeting legally binding climate targets. If the Supreme Administrative Court accepts this argument, it could significantly expand the role of the courts in overseeing the implementation of climate policy, potentially pushing the Finnish government to take adequate action where it has fallen short.

What makes the case especially compelling it the incorporation of Sámi indigenous rights. A ruling in favour of the plaintiffs could establish a groundbreaking precedent in recognising that failing to meet climate targets is not just an environmental issue but a violation of the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples, whose livelihoods and cultures are disproportionately affected by climate change.

The lawsuit is posed to break new ground in climate law and could hopefully serve as a turning point in how courts in Finland approach government accountability for climate inaction. It would constitute yet another example of a growing trend in which the judiciary steps in the address governmental inaction on climate change. If successful, it would slightly shift Finland – and potentially other jurisdictions – toward a legal system where judicial intervention becomes a necessary tool when political processes fail to respond adequately to the accelerating climate crisis. This gradual shift, while still limited by procedural hurdles and judicial deference, reflects a broader recognition that climate change is not just a policy matter but a legal obligation that governments must be held accountable for. Courts are increasingly being seen as an essential mechanism to push states to meet their climate commitments, especially where political will is lacking.