Swedish
The case concerned liability for the state to pay damages as a result of an erroneous environmental sanction charge.
A shop sold juice in cans that were not in an approved return system. This was detected when an unannounced site visit was made by an official from a regulatory authority. The regulatory authority later concluded that the company had to pay an environmental sanction charge. The decision was appealed to the Environmental Court, but no review permission was given.
The case eventually came before the Supreme Court as the company meant that the Environmental Court had not given a review permission although an erroneous decision had been made by the regulatory authority.
The relevant legislation establishes that all drinks sold in plastic bottles and cans have to be in an approved return system. The second paragraph of the provision, however, states that there is an exception for fruit juices. The company thus meant that the state should pay damages, in accordance with national legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Supreme Court concluded that the company had suffered financial damage as a result of the erroneous decision and that it should therefore be compensated. Furthermore, the Supreme Court agreed that the company’s rights acquired from the European Convention on Human Rights had been infringed. It then concluded that the compensation of the financial damages had remedied the infringement.