abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

27 Oct 2022

Author:
Karolina Bonde, Pax - Unpaid Debt

Trial Planning Resumes – Lundin attacks the indictment

The District Court has decided to resume the planning of the trial against Ian Lundin, Alex Schneiter and Lundin Energy AB. Ian Lundin and Lundin/Orrön Energy responded with an appeal to the Court to reject the indictment for failing to properly describe the alleged crimes. The timing of their claim – eleven months after the indictment and shortly before the first planning session – would be consistent with a legal strategy to delay procedures and undermine the integrity of the trial…

The District Court decided on 21 September that the planning of the trial against Ian Lundin and Alex Schneiter must proceed. The planning was adjourned last January pending the Supreme Court’s decision on whether Sweden has jurisdiction over Alex Schneiter. On October 20, the parties held a planning meeting at the District Court.

Prosecutor Henrik Attorps has repeatedly attempted to get the defence and the District Court to meet in order to proceed with the planning of the case, arguing that “it is unclear when a ruling from the Supreme Court can be expected. Even if the Supreme Court were to uphold Schneiter’s appeal, the indictment against Ian Lundin and the action against Lundin Energy AB remains”. Attorp highlighted that the case is “extremely extensive” and requires proper planning in order to protect the integrity of the trial. The defence have rejected all his requests. The District Court now agrees with the Prosecutor and confirms that the planning of the trial must resume. It notes that several meetings will be needed to prepare the case for the trial…

Apart from the dubious legal merit of the suspects’ legal actions, they are undermining the integrity of the trial, which confirms Lundin’s indifference towards victims of war crimes who have been waiting for over 20 years to see justice done.

Timeline