The case concerned a logging notification in Östersund Municipality, in an area where findings of the butterfly species Trollgraumeter had been reported. The species is red-listed as critically endangered, but is not subject to conservation protection.
The question in the case was whether, within the framework of a consultation pursuant to Chapter 12, Section 6 of the Environmental Code, it is possible to decide on precautionary measures or prohibitions for the protection of a red-listed species based on the Environmental Code's general rules of consideration, even if the species is not protected. The question also concerned whether such requirements may go beyond the Forest Conservation Act's restriction on encroachment.
The court answers yes. If the Swedish Forest Agency deems that precautionary measures within the Forestry Act's restriction on encroachment are not sufficient, the authority must make a decision in accordance with Chapter 12, Section 6 of the Environmental Code.
When assessing sufficient protective measures in this case, the starting point, according to the court, should be the same as for protected species: that the continuous ecological function should be maintained for the species. However, the requirements should be assessed according to the Environmental Code's rule of fairness, with particular regard to the benefit of the protective measures compared to the costs. Less intrusive measures should be chosen in the first place.
The matter was referred back to the Swedish Forest Agency for further processing and assessment of the need for additional protective measures.
The judgment makes it clear that the absence of a conservation order does not exclude the requirement for protective measures based on the general rules of consideration in the Environmental Code. The judgment was not unanimous.
Source: Land and Environmental Court of Appeal, judgment 2026-06-04, case no. M 10697-25 (Svea Court of Appeal).
