During the last decade, the substantial growth in the field of climate litigation has also expanded to Finland. What started as isolated legal challenges has evolved into a global phenomenon and an increasingly used and effective tool in the fight against climate change.
Climate litigation can be described as a form of strategic litigation, where claimants turn to courts to typically compel governments, corporations, or other entities to take action on climate change or to hold them accountable for their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and other climate-related harms. In contrast to commercial disputes, in which the focus tends to lie on monetary claims, climate litigation seeks to achieve broader systemic change.
Overview of recent trends and developments
Globally, the number of cases has been growing exponentially, with recent reports indicating around 3,000 cases across approximately 60 jurisdictions.1 These figures reflect a broader trend where climate litigation has evolved from being concentrated in a handful of pioneering jurisdictions to a truly global phenomenon, with an increasing number of climate-related claims being brought before courts across various legal systems.
This rapid expansion has not only increased the volume of cases but also brought diversity in the form of new types of claims, strategic approaches and legal grounds. The scope of climate litigation has broadened beyond traditional claims targeting government climate policies to encompass new categories of claims, including, for example, claims against financial institutions, claims related to investments and investor protection, corporate liability and fiduciary duty claims, as well as greenwashing claims.
In particular, a trend of targeting private entities or their directors and shareholders has been on the rise, and further climate related cases against private entities are to be expected. More broadly, the scope of climate litigation has also expanded to cover wider environmental, social and governance issues, often referred to as ESG litigation. Such claims increasingly seek to hold companies accountable not only for their direct environmental impact but also for their broader governance and social responsibilities.
Recent case law shows that courts across various jurisdictions continue to demonstrate a willingness to engage with and recognise climate-related claims, with a noticeable trend of rulings in favour of activist claimants. Another noticeable trend is the increasing reliance on human rights as a legal basis for climate litigation claims. At the same time, the enactment of new climate and sustainability related regulations at both national and international levels continues to create additional legal grounds for future climate and ESG litigation, further expanding the avenues available to potential claimants.
Whilst climate litigation continues to gain traction globally, recent reports indicate that the rapid growth has, however, also given rise to a countertrend in the form of so-called “anti-climate litigation”.2 Rather than advancing environmental objectives, such cases seek to delay, block, weaken or overturn climate policies or climate action, with claimants invoking arguments related to e.g. trade restrictions or investment treaty protections.
From Urgenda to KlimaSeniorinnen: Landmark decisions continue to shape the future of climate litigation
The climate litigation scene has experienced several landmark rulings in recent years that have shaped and continue to shape the field. In the following, we address some of the more significant decisions and the implications they carry.
Urgenda paving the way for climate litigation: In 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court rendered its landmark judgment in Urgenda Foundation v. the State of the Netherlands, ordering the Government of the Netherlands to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.3 The ruling marked a significant turning point for modern-day climate litigation, as it constituted the first time that a court legally compelled a government to reduce emissions based on human rights obligations. Since Urgenda, a steady stream of cases has followed, and several landmark rulings have further shaped the field.
Legislative changes as a result of climate litigation: In Neubauer et al. v. Germany, a group of German youth activists successfully challenged the national climate legislation, arguing that Germany had failed to enact adequate climate legislation.4 The German court found the national law partially incompatible with fundamental rights, as it failed to set sufficient provisions for emission cuts beyond the year 2030, and ordered the German legislator to amend and strengthen the existing legislation by 2022. The case stands as a powerful example of how climate litigation can serve as a tool to bring about legislative change.
Legal action against private entities on the rise: While early climate litigation was primarily directed at governments, the Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc. marked a notable shift towards holding private entities accountable for their climate actions.5 In April 2019, the claimants filed a lawsuit against Shell, alleging that Shell’s contribution to climate change constituted a breach of its duty of care under Dutch law as well as human rights obligations. In a groundbreaking first instance ruling, the Hague District Court ordered Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45 % by 2030. Shell appealed, and the Hague Court of Appeal rendered its decision in November 2024. While the Court of Appeal concurred with the general interpretive aspects of the previous ruling, it overturned the District Court’s decision insofar as it had imposed a specific emission reduction target on Shell. Milieudefensie et al. have since appealed the decision, and the case is currently pending before the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. The Supreme Court is expected to render its judgement in 2026, and the ruling will undoubtedly be of significance for future climate litigation.
In a further development, Milieudefensie announced on 21 April 2026 that it has filed a second climate litigation case against Shell, which builds on the first case.6
Human rights holding states accountable for their climate obligations: In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, a senior women’s climate association together with four individual co-applicants lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”).7 The applicants claimed that their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) had been infringed due to Switzerland’s inadequate climate policies.8 In its ruling of 9 April 2024, the ECtHR found that Switzerland had violated the right to respect for private and family life by failing to comply with its positive obligations concerning climate change. The ECtHR established that this right encompasses a right for individuals to enjoy effective protection by State authorities from serious adverse effects on life, health, well-being and quality of life arising from the harmful effects and risks caused by climate change.9 The ECtHR also found Switzerland’s actions to be in violation of the right to access to court. By recognising the duty of states to implement effective climate policies under the ECHR, the case holds status of a landmark legal precedent.
Together, these cases illustrate the ever-evolving nature of climate litigation and its effectiveness as a legal tool for addressing climate change. As this global movement continues to develop, it provides valuable precedents and strategic insights for emerging climate litigation landscapes, where the field is still in its early stages.
What has been seen in Finland so far?
While Finland may not yet be at the forefront of climate litigation, signs of its emergence are becoming increasingly evident within the Finnish jurisdiction.
First climate litigation in Finland: Finland experienced its first large-scale climate litigation in November 2022, when Greenpeace Norden and the Finnish Foundation for Nature Protection (Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto ry) filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court, alleging that the Government had breached the Finnish Climate Act (423/2022).10 The appeal concerned an Annual Climate Report, which the Government submits yearly to the Parliament in accordance with the Climate Act.
This historic first case, however, ultimately fell on procedural hurdles, as the Supreme Administrative Court ruled the appeal inadmissible with its decision of 7 June 2023, determining that the Annual Climate Report did not constitute a decision eligible for appeal.11 Consequently, the substantive merits of the case were never examined.
Although the case failed on procedural grounds – a rather common outcome in climate litigation – it nonetheless marked the beginning of climate litigation in Finland and played an important role in clarifying the legal framework for future cases. Despite ruling the matter inadmissible, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the legality of the Government’s decision-making could be subject to judicial review where a failure to act would contradict the Climate Act, or where the Government’s conduct would indicate that it did not intend to take appropriate decisions in a timely manner to achieve and comply with the objectives set out in the Climate Act. As such, the ruling left the door open for future legal action against government inaction on climate policy.
Since then, several developments have signalled the continued emergence of climate litigation within the Finnish jurisdiction.
Finland introduces separate appeal provisions to the national Climate Act: The Climate Act sets forth the objectives and framework for the planning of Finland’s climate policy and the monitoring of its implementation.12 Importantly, the Climate Act sets out legally binding targets to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035 as well as emission reduction milestones for 2030, 2040 and 2050. Originally enacted in 2015, the Act was replaced by the reformed Climate Act in 2022. Prior to its enactment, there was much less of a direct framework for climate litigation in Finland.
A subsequent amendment of the Act, which entered into force on 1 March 2023, introduced specific provisions on appeal. Prior to the amendment, the Act lacked dedicated appeal provisions, creating legal uncertainty for potential litigants.
The importance of introducing separate appeal provisions was recognised in the governmental proposal to the amendment of the Climate Act.13 Notably, the legislator stated that the aim of the amendment was to reduce legal uncertainty, increase clarity, and improve access to influence on environmental decision-making.14 By introducing separate provisions on appeal, Finland has taken a step towards enhancing legal certainty in climate policy decision-making at a national level.
The Supreme Administrative Court renders its decision in the second large-scale climate litigation in Finland: The second chapter of Finnish large-scale climate litigation unfolded when a group of NGOs15 brought a new case before the Supreme Administrative Court, which rendered its judgement in 2025.16 Building on the first case, the NGOs filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court, essentially alleging government passivity and arguing that the actions of the Government were insufficient to reach the targets set out in the Climate Act.
In a significant departure from the first case, the Supreme Administrative Court considered the matter admissible. Notably, the ECtHR’s KlimaSeniorinnen judgement, rendered after the first Finnish climate litigation case, played a significant role in the admissibility assessment, demonstrating the impact that global legal precedents have on national judicial decision-making.
Yet while the Supreme Administrative Court found the appeal admissible, the outcome ultimately did not favour the appellants. The Court held the Government’s actions to be lawful, as additional carbon sink measures were in the process of being prepared and implemented, making it premature to assess their adequacy for meeting the 2030 and 2035 climate targets. Importantly, however, the Court concluded that should such additional measures be significantly delayed to the point where achieving the binding targets of the Climate Act within the prescribed timeframe would clearly no longer be possible, the obligations under the Climate Act with respect to additional measures must be considered unlawfully breached. By reaching this conclusion, the Court once again left the door open for future climate litigation, this time by expressly taking a position on the lawfulness of the relevant circumstances, thereby establishing a substantive legal benchmark against which future government action may be assessed.
What does the future of climate litigation in Finland entail?
While the future trajectory of Finland’s climate litigation landscape remains uncertain, several indicators suggest continued growth. The expanding body of international precedents, combined with Finnish courts’ demonstrated willingness to engage with climate-related legal challenges, creates a promising foundation for future cases.
A clear and recent demonstration of this trend is the third large-scale climate litigation case, lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court in early 2026, in which Greenpeace Finland and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation have appealed the Long-term Climate Policy Plan of the Finnish Government.17
As Finland’s carbon neutrality targets draw closer, the pressure on policymakers will only intensify and with it, the likelihood that stakeholders will turn to the courts to enforce compliance with these commitments. Recent assessments underline that carbon neutrality cannot yet be reached through current measures, but that further action is needed across all sectors to meet the targets set out in the Act.18 In light of such findings and as the target deadlines approach, further activity within the field of climate litigation is to be expected.
Looking ahead, climate litigation in Finland is unlikely to remain only government-focused. Companies should prepare for the possibility of climate-related claims being directed at private corporations also within the Finnish jurisdiction. As sustainability continues to assume a greater role in the corporate world, businesses will need to proactively assess and manage their ESG- and climate-related legal exposure.
1See for example Global Climate Litigation Report: 2025 Status Review, 3 October 2025; Global trends in climate change litigation: 2025 snapshot, Joana Setzer & Catherine Higham, The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, 25 June 2025 and United Nations Environment Programme: Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review, 27 July 2023.
2See for example Global Climate Litigation Report: 2025 Status Review, 3 October 2025, p. 20, 42.
3For more case information, see: https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/.
4For more case information, see: https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/neubauer-et-al-v-germany/.
5For more case information, see https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc/.
6Press release available here: https://en.milieudefensie.nl/news/milieudefensie-starts-second-climate-case-against-shell-with-massive-map-of-the-world.
7For more case information, see: https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-council-and-others/. For more case information on the domestic procedings, see: https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-parliament/.
8The applicants also referred to unfair court proceedings and lack of effective remedy by arguing that Switzerland has denied them proper legal recourse.
9See ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, Application No. 53600/20, Judgementof 9 April 2024, paras 519 and 544.
10For more information see: D&I Alert – First large-scale climate litigation fled in Finland, 29 November 2022.
11KHO 2023:62, dated 7 June 2023, available in Finnish here: https://www.kho.fi/fi/index/paatokset/ennakkopaatokset/1685961608803.html.
12For an unofficial translation of the Finnish Climate Act (as at 5 September 2022) see: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/lainsaadanto/saadoskaannokset/2022/eng/423.
13HE 239/2022 vp. Available in Finnish here: https://www.eduskunta.fi/asiat-ja-aanestykset/valtiopaivaasiat/asiakirjat/edktunnus/EDK-2022-AK-55165.
14HE 239/2022 vp, p. 14-15. Available in Finnish here: https://www.eduskunta.fi/asiat-ja-aanestykset/valtiopaivaasiat/asiakirjat/edktunnus/EDK-2022-AK-55165.
15The appellants constituted of: Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto ry, Greenpeace Norden, Amnesty International Suomen osasto ry, Suoma Sámi Nuorat – Suomen saamelaisnuoret ry, Ilmastoisovanhemmat ry and Luontoliitto ry. [1] KHO 2025:2, dated 8 January 2025 available in Finnish here: https://www.kho.fi/fi/index/paatokset/ennakkopaatokset/1735886394202.html.
17Press releases availbale here: https://www.greenpeace.org/finland/tiedotteet/ilmastonmuutos/jarjestot-valittivat-hallituksen-pitkan-aikavalin-ilmastosuunnitelmasta-oikeuteen/; https://www.sll.fi/ajankohtaista/jarjestot-valittivat-hallituksen-pitkan-aikavalin-ilmastosuunnitelmasta-oikeuteen/.
18See, for example, a recent assessment of the targets of the Climate Act prepared by the Ministry of the Environment, published on 7 April 2026: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/1410903/ilmastolain-tavoitteiden-arviointi-on-valmistunut-suomen-tavoitteet-ovat-kansainvalisten-sopimusten-ja-eu-velvoitteiden-mukaiset. Full report available here: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/items/8c04dc21-fe5d-4bb1-979f-eaba25bcacd1.
Contact authors
