The Supreme Administrative Court clarifies the requirements for extending an exploration permit under the Minerals Act

In a judgment of April 24, 2026 (case no. 2870-25), the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen, “HFD”) has clarified what is required for special reasons (“särskilda skäl”) to be deemed to exist for extending the period of validity of an exploration permit under Chapter 2, Section 7, first paragraph, of the Minerals Act (1991:45).

HFD held that the circumstances invoked need not be unexpected or unforeseeable at the time the permit was granted. What is decisive is instead that the circumstances have prevented, or to a sufficient degree impeded, the exploration work, and that the circumstances are not attributable to the permit holder itself or to its planning and performance of the work. The judgment provides welcome guidance for exploration companies, landowners and other parties concerned on a question that had previously been examined only in the case law of the lower courts.

Boliden Mineral AB had held the exploration permit Nautanen no. 1007 in the Municipality of Gällivare since 2015, situated between the company’s copper deposits Aitik and Nautanen. Following an initial extension, the company applied for a further four-year extension of the period of validity under Chapter 2, Section 7, first paragraph, of the Minerals Act. The Chief Mining Inspector (bergmästaren) granted the extension, referring to the fact that appropriate work had been carried out, that there were clear plans for the continued exploration work, that consideration for reindeer husbandry in the area had impeded work during the winter grazing season, and that the ground conditions — wetland — had impeded work during the snow-free season. Two landowners appealed, arguing that special reasons presuppose unexpected, exceptional conditions that could not have been foreseen when the permit was granted, that the conditions relating to reindeer husbandry and the wetland had been known from the outset, and that the decision lacked any balancing of the interests of the company against those of the landowners. The Administrative Court in Luleå and the Administrative Court of Appeal in Sundsvall dismissed the appeals, after which HFD granted leave to appeal.

HFD’s legal considerations

An exploration permit is valid for three years and shall be extended by a maximum of three years if appropriate exploration has been carried out (Chapter 2, Sections 5 and 6 of the Minerals Act). The intention is that the exploration should be completed within this six-year period and that the explorer should either apply for an exploitation concession or leave the area. Thereafter, the period of validity shall be extended by a further maximum of four years if there are special reasons (Chapter 2, Section 7, first paragraph) and may finally be extended by a maximum of five years if there are extraordinary reasons (“synnerliga skäl”, second paragraph) — a maximum of 15 years in total.
HFD took as its starting point the character of the Minerals Act as an instrument of industrial policy intended to promote the extraction of minerals that are of industrial use and of significance to the national economy, and the 1998 legislative amendment by which the requirement in the first paragraph was relaxed from extraordinary to special reasons, with the aim of facilitating matters for explorers as exploration for ore bodies at greater depths had become more time-consuming. As examples of special reasons, the preparatory works cite the nature of the deposit, particular natural conditions and comparable circumstances that have prevented or impeded the exploration work.
HFD found that these examples indicate that the circumstances should as a rule relate to the work within the exploration area, but that no requirement is imposed that the circumstances must have been unexpected or unforeseeable. On the contrary, it lies in the very nature of exploration work that the conditions concerning the nature of the deposit and the natural conditions within the area become known as the work progresses. What is decisive is that the circumstances have prevented or to a sufficient degree impeded the work, and that they are not due to the permit holder’s own planning or performance. In HFD’s view, both the purpose of the Minerals Act and the purpose of the 1998 amendment support an assessment that should not be unduly restrictive.

HFD made two further important clarifications. First, in the assessment of special reasons, no balancing of opposing interests is to be carried out, for example between the interests of the explorer and those of the landowners. The interests of landowners and other rights holders are instead safeguarded through the work plan and in the examination under other legislation. Second, the fact that the permit holder has carried out extensive exploration and has clear plans for continued work does not constitute special reasons under the first paragraph. Such circumstances have had no bearing on the exploration work and may instead be taken into account only at a later stage, in the assessment of whether extraordinary reasons exist under the second paragraph.
In the case at hand, HFD found that the consideration given to reindeer husbandry during the winter grazing season and the special ground conditions during the snow-free season were conditions connected to the exploration area that were not attributable to the company’s planning or performance, and that they had impeded the work to such a degree that special reasons existed. The extension was therefore correct and the appeals were dismissed.

Analysis

The judgment is the first precedential ruling from HFD on the meaning of special reasons in Chapter 2, Section 7, of the Minerals Act, and will be of considerable practical significance for exploration activities in Sweden. HFD expressly rejects the interpretation advanced by the landowners — that only unforeseen, exceptional events can form the basis for an extension — and confirms a comparatively generous application in line with the industrial policy purpose of the Minerals Act. The acceptance of adaptations to reindeer husbandry, wetlands and natural environments worthy of protection as special reasons is particularly significant for exploration in northern Sweden, where such conditions regularly occur. A permit holder that shows consideration for opposing interests and is thereby delayed should thus not be penalised by having an extension refused.

At the same time, the judgment draws a clear line that tightens the requirements compared with previous case law of the lower courts: work already carried out and clear plans for continued exploration do not in themselves constitute special reasons under the first paragraph, but belong instead to the assessment of extraordinary reasons under the second paragraph. The Chief Mining Inspector and the lower instances had based their decisions in part on precisely such circumstances. Explorers applying for an extension should therefore carefully document the specific conditions — outside their own control — that have prevented or impeded the work, and should not rely on the extent of the work performed or on promising results.

For landowners and other parties concerned, the judgment clarifies that no balancing of interests takes place within the framework of the extension assessment. This does not mean that their interests lack protection, but the protection lies in the work plan procedure, in the rules on consideration in the Minerals Act and in the examination under the Environmental Code and other legislation — not in any possibility of blocking an extension. Those who wish to influence how exploration work is conducted should therefore focus on the work plan and the conditions governing the performance of the work.

Foyen has extensive experience of advising in the mining and minerals sector, from exploration permits and work plans to exploitation concessions and environmental permits.