The considerations of the SC are interesting. Let's suppose that the environmental lawyer has found some new evidence that wasn't available at the initial permit level, or at the Svea Land and Environment Court of Appeal, the SC would have to find that a) this new evidence was not available to the appellant at the time of the initial appeal and b) that it would have made a difference to the outcome of the initial case. The onus is on the appellant to prove this.

As I've said before, you'd have thought that the appellants would have thrown everything they could at the initial case and appeal.

If it's about impacts on ground-water, you'd also think that would have played out already at the permit level, though the lawyer may disagree with the judge's decision and its basis. Perhaps it's there that the lawyer hopes to find not a precedent, but "an error at law"? Here is a summary of the original decision:

Fact box

The Land and Environment Court has granted Talga AB the requested permit to extract graphite in part of the national interest Nunasvaara, which is located approximately 10 km west of Vittangi and approximately 50 km east of Kiruna. The permit includes an annual mining of 120,000 tons of graphite ore in open pits and, among other things, to build and operate the facilities needed for the business.

Talga AB has also received a so-called Natura 2000 permit regarding the impact on the protected area Kalix and Torne river system. Dispensation from the species protection regulation for three larch species that may be affected in the area has also been granted. The permit has been combined with a total of 24 final conditions and one provisional condition. The conditions include necessary precautions and protective measures, e.g. regarding noise, blasting, reindeer husbandry, construction and finishing as well as compensation measures for loss of natural values. The determination of final conditions for releases to water of certain substances and emissions to air of dust has been postponed for a trial period.

The Land and Environment Court's partial judgment can be appealed within three weeks to the Land and Environment Court at the Svea Court of Appeal.

Now you have to take into consideration that this permit application took three years to be approved, so the evidence was tested and retested. Here is the fuller text:

Talga AB receives permission for a graphite mine at Nunasvaara in Kiruna municipality

Published 2023-04-05 byUmeå district courtandThe Land and Environmental Court at Umeå District Court

Target: M 1573-20

The Land and Environmental Court grants Talga AB permission for mining operations at Nunasvaara Södra, extensive open pit mining of 120,000 tons of graphite ore annually. The court does not allow the permit to be claimed even if it is appealed.

Sami villages, organizations, individuals and Finnish parties have considered that there are general shortcomings in the application. They have objected that it is not possible to make an overall assessment of the environmental consequences of the operation because the company has not simultaneously applied for permission for its other projects next to Nunasvaara Södra.

- The application applies to all activities that the company intends to conduct at Nunasvaara Södra and is not dependent on other projects or environmental permits. The court also does not think that there are any flaws in the evidence. It has therefore been possible for the court to carry out a complete assessment of all environmental effects, explains the court's chairman, councilor Anna Svedjevik.

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.

Talga's application for a permit was submitted to the court at the end of May 2020. The processing time from the time the application was received until the court announced its verdict amounted to almost three years.

- The goal has been a little unusual because the application has also been made available to the public in Finland. Material has also been translated into Finnish. It has affected the court's processing time, explains Anna Svedjevik, councillor.

Then it went to the Svea Court of Appeal, where the above decision was upheld. Let's see what the SC court finds.