The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency decided that two companies should pay a fee to the state for a failure to hand over allowances for its carbon dioxide emissions for the past year. The companies appealed the decision, but the appeal was rejected by the Environmental Court. Also the Environmental Court of Appeal rejected the subsequent appeal. This was the final instance in the matter.

Then, the companies claimed that the Supreme Court should allow a retrial or quash the judgment because of a grave procedural error having been committed. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency opposed both claims.

The companies meant that the allowances were not delivered on time due to an administrative mistake on their part, though they had them at the time that they should have been delivered. They moreover meant that the fee was much too large to be proportional to the error. The fee was 100 Euro for every ton of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The Supreme Court requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Articles 16.3 and 16.4 of the Emission Trading Directive (2003/87/EG). The answer was that the fee should be paid in accordance with the articles and the Swedish legislation implementing them. The Court could not with reference to the principle of proportionality adjust the amount.

The Supreme Court also assessed whether the European Convention of Human Rights could preclude the application of this legislation. It concluded that in this case it did not do so, as a national court can only divert from the interpretation of the Court of Justice if the application in an individual case would constitute a serious and unambiguous violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court therefore rejected the claims by the companies.