Talga in 2023, page-267

@Pharvest I didn't see that, but the wording is strongly in favour of Talga.

"The substantive examination before the court has included the location of the business and its impact on, among other things, human health, reindeer husbandry, water environments, species and Natura 2000 areas. The court has concluded that permits and species protection exemptions can be issued. Two important issues in the case have been the activity's impact on reindeer husbandry and the impact through emissions to water.

- That the water can be purified means that mining operations can be conducted without unacceptable risks for land and water environments. The terms of the judgment have been determined to guarantee this, says Per Lagervall, as a technically knowledgeable judge in the case.

- A mine always involves an intervention in the natural environment and an impact on reindeer husbandry. In this case, mining will only be allowed to take place the six months a year that the Sami villages are not in the area. The court has therefore concluded that mining operations and reindeer herding can coexist on the site, says Lena Nilsson, also a technically knowledgeable judge in the case."

The difficulty of an appeal is that you force the court to admit that they were somehow wrong. After a "substantive examination", I don't see that happening just because some local property owners are supposedly inconvenienced.