Background
Under Swedish electricity law (ellagen 1997:857), constructing or operating a high-voltage power line requires a grid concession (nätkoncession). In 1988, the state-owned Svenska kraftnät obtained a concession for a 245 kV overhead line running from Måby to Överby, valid until 2000. In 1998 — before the Environmental Code (miljöbalken) entered into force on 1 January 1999 — Svenska kraftnät applied to the then-Energy Authority (now the Energy Markets Inspectorate, Energimarknadsinspektionen) for an extension. A transitional provision attached to the 1999 reform of the electricity act preserved the old framework: applications initiated before the Environmental Code’s commencement were to be handled and assessed under the superseded Natural Resources Act (lagen om hushållning med naturresurser m.m., 1987:12).
The 2013 amendment to the electricity act converted most grid concessions to open-ended status. Its transitional rules provided that a concession whose last determined validity was shorter than twenty-five years would remain time-limited and could be extended by at most fifteen years at a time. The Måby–Överby concession had originally been granted for roughly twelve years, placing it squarely in that category. During the protracted proceedings, Svenska kraftnät first amended its application in 2018 to seek an indefinite extension, then in 2023 revised it again to request a fixed twelve-year extension, anticipating construction of a new line. In February 2024, Energimarknadsinspektionen granted the twelve-year extension (to 12 February 2036), applying the old Natural Resources Act on the strength of the 1999 transitional provision.
Lövsta Stuteri AB — a stud farm with interests in the affected area — and the individual applicant AA appealed to the Government (Ministry of Climate and Enterprise), arguing that the assessment should have been conducted under the Environmental Code and that Energimarknadsinspektionen had violated its duty to communicate material changes in the case to them before deciding. The Government rejected the appeal, and the applicants then sought judicial review (rättsprövning) before the Supreme Administrative Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Administrative Court declined to quash the Government’s decision. On the procedural ground, the Court found that the applicants had never been formal parties (parter) before Energimarknadsinspektionen, so the notification obligation in section 25(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (förvaltningslagen 2017:900) simply did not apply to them. The Court noted that the applicants had, in any event, been given an opportunity to submit observations during the Government’s own review.
On the central substantive issue — which legal framework governs the environmental assessment — the Court reasoned that the 2013 transitional provisions addressed only the duration of existing concessions, not the substantive law to be applied when reviewing an application. The operative rule remained the explicit 1999 transitional provision: because Svenska kraftnät’s application was filed in 1998, before the Environmental Code took effect, the application must be assessed under the old Natural Resources Act, regardless of how many years the case remained open or what interim reforms occurred. The 2013 reform did not render that provision obsolete.
The Court also rejected the argument that Svenska kraftnät’s 2023 revision — switching from an indefinite to a twelve-year fixed extension — constituted a new application requiring fresh assessment under the Environmental Code. Nothing in the electricity act prevents an applicant from modifying a pending application, and such a modification does not transform the proceeding into a new one. As Svenska kraftnät ultimately requested only twelve years (within the fifteen-year statutory ceiling for time-limited concessions), the grant was lawful. Finding no violation of any legal rule as alleged, or otherwise apparent from the circumstances, the Court left the Government’s decision intact.
Key Takeaways
- A grid-concession application filed before 1 January 1999 must be assessed under the repealed Natural Resources Act, not the Environmental Code — this obligation survives all subsequent amendments to the electricity act, including the 2013 reform, which addressed concession duration only, not the applicable substantive law.
- Amending a pending application — even substantially, and many years into the proceedings — does not restart the clock or convert the matter into a new application that would trigger the current statutory framework.
- The Administrative Procedure Act’s duty to communicate material information under section 25 applies only to formal parties; third parties who have not been granted party status in the original administrative proceeding cannot rely on that provision, even if they are directly affected by the outcome.
- Under the 2013 transitional rules, a concession whose last fixed validity was less than twenty-five years remains classified as time-limited and may be extended by up to fifteen years at a time; an extension for a shorter period (here, twelve years) falls within that ceiling.
Why It Matters
This decision confirms that Sweden’s decades-old transitional framework for grid-concession applications is still operative: concessions originating from applications filed before the 1999 entry into force of the Environmental Code continue to be assessed against a legal standard that has otherwise been repealed for nearly three decades. For transmission-infrastructure operators, this preserves a lighter regulatory burden for legacy proceedings still working their way through the system. For neighbours and environmental advocates, it signals that challenging such proceedings on the ground that the more stringent Environmental Code should apply will not succeed as long as the original filing predates 1999.
The ruling also draws a clear procedural boundary: only those who hold formal party status in the underlying administrative proceeding enjoy the full suite of procedural rights — including the right to be informed of and to comment on new material — under the Administrative Procedure Act. Affected landowners or other interested parties who have not been formally admitted as parties must seek to participate at the governmental review stage or through other channels, and cannot retroactively invoke section 25 to invalidate the agency’s decision.