Thank you for your informative post.I have read an English...

Thank you for your informative post.

I have read an English translation of the 80 page Court ruling. It discusses at great length 2 very pertinent issues relating to use of the land: reindeer husbandry and the quality of any water discharge arising from mining activity.

The ruling in favour of Talga clearly dismisses any argument in favour of the exclusive use of the land solely for reindeer herding, since both the cultural claims of the Sami people and the extraction of critical raw material, such as graphite carry equal weight as being of national importance to Sweden. The concession by Talga only to mine during the summer months when the reindeer herds are in the mountains on their traditional pastures respectfully recognises the claim of the Sami people. It is therefore unlikely that an appeal on these grounds would be allowed as it would undermine the assessment of the Court, which can only be described as comprehensive on the basis of the extent of its ruling.

The Court has granted Talga an exemption from Natura 2000 criteria as the mining tenements are outside the Natura 2000 area of the Torne river. This is a fact, adjacent to does not mean within. The Court is clearly satisfied that the measures Talga has committed to relating to water quality discharge are more than sufficient and will be backed by continuous stringent monitoring. It is therefore unlikely that an appeal on theses grounds would be allowed.

The Court granted very generous time extensions to parties opposing Talga’s proposed mine last year. It is therefore unlikely that any further time concessions would be granted unless those appeals are supported by credible evidence, otherwise it would undermine due process.

I also note that no party was granted legal expenses. This means everybody must bear their own legal costs.