In June 2025, the Administrative Court of Växjö (Förvaltningsrätten i Växjö), Sweden, handed down two closely related judgments against the Municipality of Växjö (Växjö kommun) (Mål 989-25 and Region Kronoberg (Mål 1152-25). Earlier in the year, the two public authorities adopted decisions to support the return of a direct flight from Växjö to Stockholm. Both decisions were challenged by natural persons.
In two judgments delivered on 24 June 2025, the Administrative Court of Växjö annulled parts of the decisions linked to the airline tickets, finding they amounted to unlawful state aid under the Local Government Act (Kommunallagen). It held that the support was individually targeted, disproportionate to actual need, and lacked exceptional justification.
Background and Facts
In early 2025, two public authorities in southern Sweden, the Municipality of Växjö (Växjö kommun) and Region Kronoberg adopted decisions aimed at incentivising the return of a direct air connection from Växjö to Stockholm, a flight route that had previously operated, but was recently discontinued.
Their strategies were similar in structure, but differed in scale and framing, totalling approximately 24 million SEK (€2.1 million, approx.). The Municipality of Växjö authorised, from public funds, the pre-purchase of 1000 airline tickets for up to 2.5 million SEK (€225,000, approx.) over one year, conditional on the establishment of the route. Region Kronoberg went further, committing to buy 1500 airline tickets over three years totalling nearly 9.7 million SEK (€875,000, approx.), and to grant 12 million SEK (€1 million, approx.) to Växjö Småland Airport AB, all public funds, for climate-related measures.
The decisions of the two public authorities were challenged through legality reviews under Chapter 13 of the Local Government Act (Kommunallagen) (2017:725). The claimants argued that the decisions, inter alia, constituted unlawful state aid to private actors, and violated Chapter 2, Section 8 a complementary national provision to EU state aid law, which states:
‘Kommuner och regioner får vidta åtgärder för att allmänt främja näringslivet i kommunen eller regionen. Individuellt inriktat stöd till enskilda näringsidkare får lämnas endast om det finns synnerliga skäl för det.’ (emphasis added)
Or, in rough English translation:
‘Municipalities and regions may take measures to generally promote business in the municipality or region. Individually targeted support to specific undertakings may only be provided if there are exceptional reasons for doing so.’ (emphasis added)
Judgment of the Administrative Court of Växjö
First, as regards the decision of the Municipality of Växjö, in which the future airline tickets were to be used by the municipality, it was pointed to the fact that, historically, the municipality used only forty such tickets in a given year. Thus, with the assigned expenditure, this represented twenty-five years worth of demand.
The Administrative Court of Växjö found that: the future purchase of airline ticket between Växjö and Stockholm was not based on a concrete need; the volume of airline tickets that were to be purchased between Växjö and Stockholm far exceeded historical usage, and thus, disproportionate; and, the municipality had never pre-purchased airline tickets in this manner before.
These factors indicated that the decision of the municipality was not a routine operational expense, but a strategic subsidy (aid) aimed at attracting a commercial airline. Since no exceptional reasons were presented, the Administrative Court ruled that the decision constituted unlawful state aid and annulled it.
Second, as regards the decision of Region Kronoberg, the region stated in its defence that during the prior calendar year, over two and a half thousand trips were made to Stockholm by its staff in Växjö, and that the funding to support the airport was not supporting any particular airline that would offer the route.
The Administrative Court of Växjö reached a similar conclusion in the Region Kronoberg case as it did in the Municipality of Växjö case regarding the ticket purchase. For the Administrative Court, the Region’s claim of 2,500 trips in the previous calendar year was not specific to air travel; the only airline that had expressed interest in the route had stated that public support was essential for viability; and thus, the purchase was individually targeted and not justified by need. No exceptional reasons were provided by the region, and therefore, the Administrative Court annulled the decision. That said, the support for Växjö Småland Airport AB was maintained and not annulled.
Analysis
A couple of points are worth noting in light of these two separate judgments.
First, both decisions were explicitly and implicitly contingent on the establishment of a flight route between Växjö and Stockholm to by offered by an airline. But the Administrative Court made clear that such conditionality does not immunise their decisions from being classified as unlawful state aid.
Second, neither the municipality nor the region provided robust documentation of exceptional reasons for their decisions. Questions can therefore be asked about the legal scrutiny conducted by the two public authorities, or legal advice received and not listened to, prior to the decisions being made.
Third, public authorities knew already that they must justify expenditure with clear, data-driven assessments of need. Vague references to incomplete prior data, potential future demand, etc., will long been insufficient, as these cases demonstrate.
Fourth, the Administrative Court’s distinction between aid for airline ticket purchases (unlawful) and aid for airport grants (lawful) underscores the importance of how public supports are structured. Aid to infrastructure providers may be permissible, but only if it is general, proportionate, and not targeted at specific commercial outcomes.
Fifth, whilst regional connectivity is a legitimate public concern, efforts to support it with public funding supported by the taxpayer must be legally sound, economically justified, and procedurally transparent. The two public authorities, a larger buyer of goods and services, are able to secure regional connectivity, if they go about it the correct way. That was not what happened here however.
Read the judgments
The judgments of the Administrative Court of Växjö in the cases against Municipality of Växjö (Växjö kommun) (Mål 989-25 and Region Kronoberg (Mål 1152-25), delivered on 24 June 2025 can be ordered here.