De komplicerade föroreningsmålen har på senare år dominerats av frågor om ansvar för PFAS-föroreningar – en skadetyp som sannolikt även kommer att bli vanligare i framtiden. Ett flertal materiella regleringar aktualiseras för utkrävande av skadeståndsrättsligt ansvar i PFAS-mål. Samtidigt skapar processuella regler om bl.a. forum och kumulation hinder mot en samlad prövning av de olika grunder käranden kan tänkas göra gällande. I artikeln undersöks denna problematik närmare. Författarna visar att den processuella hanteringen av den materiella rättens fragmentisering riskerar att leda till processuella stuprör och potentiella rättsförluster för enskilda, men de pekar också på möjliga vägar framåt.

Diskussionen om fastställelsetalans tillåtlighet i svensk rätt har fått förnyad aktualitet genom Högsta domstolens avgöranden i Flygbolagets medgivande, Klimattalan och Regionens medgivande. Samtidigt har norska Høyesterett under senare år kommit med ett par avgöranden som vidgat utrymmet för fastställelsetalans tillåtlighet i Norge. Utvecklingen i Sverige och Norge väcker frågor om europarättens påverkan på nationell civilprocess, relationen mellan lagstiftare och domstolar, och access to justice. I föreliggande arbete jämförs norsk och svensk rätt, särskilt med avseende på hur krav på talans konkretion präglar möjligheten att väcka en fastställelsetalan i svensk respektive norsk civilprocess.

This paper examines the legal frameworks governing permit procedures for energy production and critical raw materials (CRM) mining - such as lithium, cobalt, and gallium - essential for green technologies like electric vehicles and wind turbines. These permits are granted ex ante, based on a prospective assessment by courts or administrative authorities of the anticipated impacts of proposed projects. This forward-looking legal process is intended to balance industrial development with environmental protection and broader societal goals, such as climate change mitigation and sustainable land use. Thus, permit procedures not only regulate future activities but also influence how the law conceptualizes and addresses the future in the present. The author analyzes both public and private interests within historical and contemporary permit laws, focusing on their temporal (time-based) and spatial (location-based) dimensions. Through case studies, the paper explores how different visions of time are embedded in legal practice and how these affect the protection of public values.

Finding a good match between legal proceedings and the problems they will be used to address, is by no means a new challenge. The complexity of custody disputes—the variations in underlying factors, the child’s individual needs, experience, and views, and the health and life circumstances of the parents—can make the challenge seem overwhelming. Therefore, rather than diving into the details of the law applicable to custody disputes, the present anthology seeks to address broader perspectives, and look for new ways forward, perhaps beyond those set out in current laws.

​This open access book explores how legal proceedings in and out-of-court can be matched to the complex problems underlying disputes concerning child custody, residence and contact between parents. It focusses in particular on Nordic experiences of in and out-of-court mechanisms as means of resolving custody disputes. The contributors are internationally renowned and experienced researchers from the legal, psychological, and sociological fields who provide empirical as well as legal perspectives. They examine central legal, ethical and knowledge-based dilemmas in custody dispute proceedings. The findings speak to an international audience and suggest ways how to best realize the interests of the child. It transcends disciplinary, institutional, and jurisdictional boundaries in search of new knowledge.

Although the phenomenon of climate change litigation has flourished in certain European countries, it has so far been limited in the Nordic countries. A reason might be that the Nordic countries do not have a strong tradition of judicial review or rights-based litigation. The role of the courts was long considered to be less about controlling that the legislature lived up to constitutional and international obligations, than ensuring the realisation in practice of the substantive law, by resolving concrete disputes. Through the analysis of issues of justiciability in one Norwegian and one Swedish climate case, this article discusses the role of the judiciary in climate cases. It is argued that the cases illustrate a tension between on the one hand the right to access to a court and judicial review, and on the other, a more limited and traditional understanding of the role of the court, which focuses on the resolution of concrete disputes. At the same time, the cases are considered to indicate that climate change litigation can bring about change in the judicial interpretation of procedural law.

This article examines three constitutional environmental provisions and how they have been applied by courts in Europe in three climate cases from Norway, Germany and France. In each of these cases, directive principles, that is, constitutionally entrenched state obligations to protect social values, generally by enacting legislation, played a key role in judicial decisions regarding climate change mitigation. We engage with Lael K. Weis’s analytical framework on directive principles to clarify the allocation of institutional responsibility for climate change mitigation as applied in these three cases, and argue that clarifying these roles alleviates some of the criticism regarding the democratic legitimacy of judicial decision making on climate change. Importantly, while courts do not directly enforce these types of constitutional directive principles, they must adjudicate them. When courts interpret constitutionally mandated legislation in light of directive principles, they develop new constitutional environmental norms. While most scholarly analysis of environmental constitutionalism has focused on environmental rights, our examination confirms Weis’s thesis that directive principles aimed at legislatures are also important forms of environmental constitutionalism, and deserving of further attention. 

Genom grupptalan i det s.k. Auroramålet stämmer en grupp unga personer svenska staten för bristande åtgärder i syfte att begränsa klimatförändringarna. Det sker i en tid när klimatprocesserna bli­ vit alltfler internationellt och när Europadomstolen står inför att avgöra de första målen som gäller hur EKMR ska tolkas med avseende på klimatförändringarna. I kommentaren resonerar jag kring vad det är som gör klimatprocesserna och Aurora till ett nytt rättsligt fenomen. Jag gör också nedslag i frågan om fastställelsetalans tillåtlighet.