In an interview about 3 weeks ago, Peter Handley stated that the...

In an interview about 3 weeks ago, Peter Handley stated that the CRMA will possibly come into force in early May. Keep in mind it's all approved and now just a formality.

Your question regarding whether or not the CRMA will have any influence on the court's decision is an interesting one. At this point, the CRMA still has not come into force and Talga are not yet named a strategic project. That may not matter - have a look

From the Domstol website (not related to this case, just their general way of ruling):

"The fact that there is new legislation in progress concerning the issue speaks against leave to appeal because the value of a precedent in that case is soon overplayed."


This is what the activist lawyer said regarding the CRMA:

"The regulation, which applies as law directly in the EU's member states, means, among other things, that so-called strategic projects can more easily obtain exemptions from environmental requirements according to the Species and Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive and the Framework Water Directive, and that decisions on permits must be announced within 24 months."


So, an overhaul of environmental codes for member states is occurring within the next couple of months with this new CRMA legislation that allows for exemptions to be more easily obtained. How could the Supreme Court look to set a new precedent if this massive change is about to occur?

There are other parties in this case, however just to stress my point, here are some of the issues in her appeal, most of which I believe are covered in the Species and Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive and the Framework Water Directive that she mentions above.

"A trial period with regard to essential water issues despite the fact that surface watercourses covered by environmental quality standards are at risk."

"A species protection dispensation for the impact on several bird species has not been deemed necessary."

"Large impact on the Natura 2000 area without taking into account the impact from other activities."



Lastly, on how the Supreme Court of Sweden would apply EU legislation (CRMA):

"The principle of the primacy (also referred to as ‘precedence’ or ‘supremacy’) of European Union (EU) law is based on the idea that where a conflict arises between an aspect of EU law and an aspect of law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail. If this were not the case, Member States could simply allow their national laws to take precedence over primary or secondary EU legislation, and the pursuit of EU policies would become unworkable."

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/primacy-of-eu-law-precedence-supremacy.html