On 5 June 2025, the Stockholm District Court (Stockholms tingsrätt) delivered its judgment in Case (Mål) T 1532-23, Astrid Lindgrens Vimmerby AB (better known as ‘Astrid Lindgrens värld’ or ‘Astrid Lindgren’s World’) v Sweden.
The District Court found the state liability for unlawful conduct during the Covid-19 pandemic, and awarded over 28 million Swedish kroner (SEK) (€2.5m, approx) in damages.
It marks an irregular occurance where a national court has held the state non-contractually liability for its conduct. In that case, the unlawful conduct was negligent interpretation of applicable law during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Background and Facts
Astrid Lindgrens Vimmerby AB operates the Astrid Lindgren’s World in Vimmerby, Småland. The theme park, which spans 18 hectares and features multiple outdoor theatre stages, is a major cultural and economic institution. In 2020, like many public venues, it faced unprecedented challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In March 2020, the state introduced a ‘prohibition regulation’ (förbudsförordningen), which limited public gatherings to 50 people. The classification of events under this ordinance became a critical issue for Astrid Lindgren’s World, whose business model relies on multiple simultaneous outdoor theatre performances. A dispute arose, centring on the interpretation of what constitutes a public gathering (allmän sammankomst) under the Public Order Act (Ordningslagen) and the Prohibition Regulation.
The Swedish Police (Polismyndigheten) determined that all theatre performances within the park, collectively, constituted a single public gathering, thereby limiting the total number of attendees across all performances to 50. Astrid Lindgren’s World disagreed, arguing that each performance, held on separate stages with distinct audiences, should be treated as an individual gathering. The undertaking maintained that the Police Authority’s interpretation lacked legal basis, and was inconsistent with the structure of the Public Order Act.
Astrid Lindgren’s World brought its claim under the Tortius Liability Act (Skadeståndslagen) of Sweden, namely, Chapter 3, Section 2 which provides for compensation when a public authority (such as the police) causes pure economic loss through fault or negligence in the exercise of public authority. To succeed in such claims there has to be both fault and causation, namely: applicants have to demonstrate that a public authority’s decision constitutes a fault or negligence in the exercise of public authority; that the decision causes economic loss; and that the economic loss was a foreseeable and adequate consequence of a public authority’s action(s).
Judgment of the Stockholm District Court
The District Court found that the Police Authority’s interpretation of the law was not only incorrect, but also manifestly incorrect (uppenbart oriktig). The District Court emphasised that the concept of a combined public gathering (samlad allmän sammankomst), which the police had relied upon, had no basis in national law. Consequently, the District Court criticised the police for failing to consider the physical layout of the park, the separation between stages, and the absence of any precedent in law supporting its interpretation. It thus concluded that the decision of the police was not grounded in a comprehensive analysis, and thus constituted a negligent exercise of public authority.
The District Court accepted the argument of Astrid Lindgren’s World that the police’s decision directly led to the closure of the park. It thus rejected the state’s contention that the undertaking could have continued operations under the restrictions or that other pandemic-related factors were the true cause of the closure. The District Court found that Astrid Lindgren’s World had acted rationally and responsibly in deciding to close the park, given the legal uncertainty and the financial impracticality of operating under the imposed restrictions, as a result of the police’s decision.
In finding for Astrid Lindgren’s World, the District Court awarded Astrid Lindgren’s World 28,439,515 SEK in damages for lost revenue, and 2,223,020 SEK in costs for counsel, as well as interest. These calculations were based on a model presented, whereby it was estimated that 2,000 visitors per day was to be counted over the 76 days the park would have operated. It also accepted the company’s calculations for lost revenue from its guest accommodations. However, the District Court deducted 21,767,601 SEK in state support (including cultural and restructuring aid) from the total claimed amount, reasoning that Astrid Lindgren’s World could not be compensated twice for the same loss.
Read the judgment
The judgment of Stockholm District Court (Stockholms tingsrätt) in Mål T 1532-23, Astrid Lindgrens Vimmerby AB v Sweden is available on request from the District Court here.