Subject:
Sweden’s application of European Union law in relation to the Ostlänken railway project, section Stavsjö–Loddby (Government Decision of 19 March 2026, Ref. LI2025/01459).
An application for judicial review has been submitted to the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen).
The complainant has also requested interim relief (suspension of implementation).
- Background
By decision of 19 March 2026, the Swedish Government rejected or dismissed a large number of appeals against the Swedish Transport Administration’s approval of the railway plan for the Ostlänken project, section Stavsjö–Loddby.
The project involves substantial environmental impacts affecting natural habitats, groundwater resources, recreational areas and the living environment of nearby residents.
An application for judicial review has been submitted to the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court. National proceedings are therefore ongoing.
The complainant nevertheless requests that the Commission examine whether the handling of the case raises issues concerning compliance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Aarhus Convention and Directive 2011/92/EU.
- Alleged infringements of European Union law
A. Violation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
The decision does not satisfy the requirements of an effective remedy.
There is no:
– clear connection between individual appellants and the legal effects of the decision;
– clear possibility of determining which appeals were examined and which were dismissed;
– individual and adequately reasoned assessment of the objections raised.
The structure of the decision therefore makes it impossible to understand or verify the scope of the review in a legally certain manner.
This is contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including Case C-72/12 (Altrip).
B. Inadequate access to justice under the Aarhus Convention
The right of environmental organisations to effective judicial protection has been restricted through an unclear and restrictive approach to standing and party status.
This is contrary to:
– Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention;
– the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including Cases C-240/09 and C-664/15.
C. Unlawful fragmentation of environmental assessment
The Government has expressly excluded central environmental issues from its review, including:
– environmental impacts during the construction phase;
– impacts on water resources;
– disturbances affecting residents and the environment.
As a consequence, the overall environmental impact of the project has not been assessed as a whole.
This is contrary to Directive 2011/92/EU (the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive) and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including Case C-50/09 Commission v Ireland.
D. Procedural deficiencies and lack of proper notification
Föreningen Bevara Kolmårdsskogen was not formally notified of the Government’s decision as a legal entity despite being listed as a party in the Government’s own appendix.
This has impaired the association’s ability to safeguard its right to effective judicial protection.
E. Inadequate access to environmental information
For a considerable period of time, the association requested documentation concerning risks to the municipal groundwater source Stubbetorp–Halsbråten.
The detailed risk assessment concerning this groundwater body is dated 30 September 2025 but was not made available to the association until 26 May 2026, despite repeated requests.
The assessment concerns, among other things, the municipal water supply which, according to the report itself, serves approximately 5,000–6,000 population equivalents and lacks a reserve water source. The report further contains specific risk assessments and recommended risk-reduction measures.
The complainant submits that the delayed access to this information has impaired the possibility of effectively participating in the decision-making process and of responding to environmental impacts before final decisions were taken.
These circumstances raise issues concerning access to environmental information under European Union law and the principles embodied in the Aarhus Convention.
F. Risks to water resources and irreversible environmental damage
The project includes tunnelling works, mass storage areas, access roads and other construction activities in the vicinity of the Stubbetorp–Halsbråten groundwater body.
The Swedish Transport Administration’s own detailed risk assessment states that specific risk-reduction measures are recommended in order to achieve an acceptable risk level for the groundwater body and the municipal water supply.
The complainant submits that this demonstrates the importance of the affected water resources and the need for particular caution before implementation of the project.
If the project proceeds before judicial review has been completed, there is a risk of damage to water resources, natural habitats and recreational values that may not be capable of full restoration through a later court decision.
The Commission is therefore requested to pay particular attention to the protection of water resources and the risk of irreversible environmental consequences.
- Request
The European Commission is respectfully requested to:
– examine Sweden’s application of European Union law in this matter;
– assess whether Sweden complies with its obligations under European Union law;
– consider initiating infringement proceedings if appropriate.
The Commission is further requested to note the risk of irreversible environmental damage before judicial review has been completed (see Annex B – Environmental Consequences for the Kolmården Area and Grounds for Interim Relief).
The Commission is also requested to take into account that national remedies are currently being pursued through the pending judicial review before the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court.
Kolmården, Sweden
14 June 2026
Därtill bilagorna A och B som du finner under klagomålet till Högsta förvaltningsdomstiolen (HFD).