TLG - Media, page-12566

Been trying to find as much info about the Swedish Approval / Appeal process re Mineral Law and found this:

National interest areas for minerals and reindeer herding may overlap, and in such cases Chapter 3 of the Environmental Code stipulates that the activity that best contributes to longer-term sustainable development should have precedence. This, in turn, leads to what have proven to be difficult judgements. The relevant authorities have in fact been unable to resolve these and in turn have referred them to central government for decision.Footnote6 Only one such judgement has actually been done, and it is the same project which became the subject of the Ågren -v- Sweden decision, where the mining interest was deemed to have precedence largely because of its perceived socio-economic benefits, and with acknowledgement that reindeer herding over the specific area would be made impossible for an extended — although limited — period of time.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13563-021-00280-5#Sec7

Based upon this, and the fact that the Sami do not gain compensation, as against land owners, this surely means that unless that lawyer can prove that the approval process was not in the best interest of sustainability of the area, then the approval will still stand, based upon this precedent