Landskapet Åland

Etelä-Karjala

Etelä-Pohjanmaa

Etelä-Savo

Kainuu

Kanta-Häme

Keski-Pohjanmaa

Keski-Suomi

Kymenlaakso

Lappi

Pirkanmaa

Pohjanmaa

Pohjois-Karjala

Pohjois-Pohjanmaa

Pohjois-Savo

Päijät-Häme

Satakunta

Uusimaa

Varsinais-Suomi

Finland

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

On December 18, 2025, the Finnish government adopted, in plenary session, Finland's first long-term climate plan under section 9 of the Climate Act and submitted it to Parliament as a report. On February 18, 2026, the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto ry) and Greenpeace, represented by Lakiasiaintoimisto Maailma, appealed against that decision to the Supreme Administrative Court, seeking its annulment and remittal to the Government for fresh preparation. According to the appellants, this is the first appeal in which the right of appeal follows directly from the Climate Act; their earlier climate appeals concerned the government's passivity in climate policy.

The Appellants contend that the plan fails to satisfy the content requirements of section 9. On their case, it does not present credible pathways for attaining the statutory emission reduction and sink targets, in particular the 2035 carbon neutrality target, and is therefore a policy document rather than an instrument answering to the Act. They argue that the Act's objectives have been abandoned in advance and that responsibility for attaining them has been displaced onto subsequent governments. The Appellants also emphasize the planning cycle: because the long-term plan is prepared at ten-year intervals, a challenge at this point is, on their account, the only effective one available. Hence, the Appellants demand that the government draw up a long-term climate plan that presents sufficiently clear by which the climate goals set out in the Climate Act will be achieved. 

The case is pending. 

In August 2024, a coalition of six Finnish environmental and human rights organizations, including Finnish Nature Conservation Union, Greenpeace, Amnesty International Finland, Climate Parents, Nature Association and Suoma Sámi Nuorat - Suomen Sámi youth filed a lawsuit against the Finnish government at the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. In Finland, the warming of the climate has a strong impact on the traditional ways of life of the Sámi people and, thus, on the Sámi culture. The plaintiffs claim that the Finnish government’s inadequate climate policies are not only a breach of the nation’s own laws but also a violation of human rights. The plaintiffs argue that the Government's insufficient climate actions and ignoring the special status of the Sami people in the preparation of policy measures in the land use sector violate the rights guaranteed to the Sami people by the Constitution and outlined in Finland’s 2022 Climate Act, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035. 

In January 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) of Finland turned down the complaint alleging the government's inaction on climate targets. The court acknowledged the government's consideration of carbon sinks but emphasized the need for time to assess the effectiveness of current policies. As implementing the measures takes time, it is impossible to rule on whether they can be considered insufficient relative to the target set for the burden-sharing sector for 2030 and the climate-neutrality target set for 2035. The court held that the climate report cannot be regarded as violating the law. The court also noted that the complaint could yield a different conclusion at a later date if it were shown that the additional measures were insufficient to meet the binding objectives set forth in the Climate Act.

Finland's Climate Act (423/2022) was amended to include new provisions on the climate plans of municipalities and on appeals concerning decisions made under the Climate Act. According to section 16 of the Finnish Climate Act, “[t]he Government shall monitor the implementation of the climate policy plans […] adequately to determine whether the targets concerning climate change mitigation and adaptation set out in the plans and the objectives referred to […] will be achieved. On the basis of the monitoring, the Government shall, if necessary, decide on the additional measures required to achieve the targets.“ The new Climate Change Act sets a target of reaching carbon neutrality by 2035 – a target recommended by Finland’s Climate Council. With the new law, there is now a legal obligation to reach carbon neutrality by 2035. However, the collapse of Finland’s carbon sinks in 2021 has created a situation where the government’s climate policy plans are insufficient for meeting the Climate Act’s targets. The reason is due to the intensive forest logging and the slowing down of forest growth that has become a source of greenhouse emissions.

The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC) and Greenpeace filed an appeal at the Supreme Administrative Court in Finland alleging a breach of the Finnish Climate Act, essentially claiming that the Finnish Government has neglected its duty to properly assess and decide on the need for additional measures pertaining to climate change mitigation when it decided to provide the Finnish Parliament with the Annual Climate Report. The environmental groups argued that the government had ignored its own laws by failing to protect the Nordic nation's carbon sinks which have fallen below the climate plans and to comply with the Climate Act, hence, the environmental groups demanded that the Finnish Government’s decision with respect to the Annual Climate Report 2022 be revoked and sent back to preparation. 
The environmental organizations specifically refer to the obligations under the Paris Agreement, arguing that “Greenpeace and the Finnish Nature Conservation Union believe it is important to seek guidance from the court on whether the monitoring and updating of the progress of climate action works as it should according to the law and the parliament intention to act in the light of the statements. At the same time, it is the first time that more effective implementation of climate measures is demanded in Finland through legal channels.” 

In the judgment on 7.6.2023, the Court found the case to be inadmissible on procedural grounds. The Court’s majority based its ruling on the well-established principle in Finnish administrative law that inaction does not constitute grounds for an administrative appeal, thereby finding the case inadmissible. The Court also emphasized:

"According to best available science, climate change is a question of humanity's fate, which threatens the living conditions of current and future generations on Earth, unless quick and effective measures are taken in terms of maintaining and increasing emission limits and carbon sinks. Therefore, postponing action shifts the responsibility into the future and makes it difficult to achieve the maximum 1.5 degree temperature goal enshrined in the Paris Agreement. The primary responsibility for fulfilling international [climate] obligations rests with democratically elected political decision makers. It is the court's job to ensure, on the basis of an appeal, that the decisions of political decision-makers are in accordance with the law and do not prevent the realization of human and fundamental rights."

The Court’s majority justified their decision with more detail than usual when dismissing a case on procedural grounds. The Court’s reasoning also includes a statement according to which:

The Supreme Administrative Court finds that (…) the legality of the Government's decision-making procedure in the manner intended by the appellant could be examined by a court of law in a case, in which failing to make the decision at this stage would lead to an end result in violation of the Climate Act, or the de facto actions of the Government would prove that it has no intention of making the appropriate decisions in order to achieve the targets and obligations required by the Act on a sufficiently rapid schedule. (Para. 69 of the Court’s Decision KHO:2023:62, emphasis added)

The Court dismissed the appeal after a 3-2 vote. A minority of two judges argued that the government had in fact taken a justiciable decision not to adopt additional climate policies. Their dissenting opinion emphasizes, inter alia, the strong link between climate change and human rights, as well as the need to provide access to legal remedies at the domestic level. 

Geography

Finland

Recent cases