Will be interesting to see where this ends.
Postnord is a private company [1].
I could see an argument that delivery is not a de jure function of government, but it certainly seems to a de facto function of government.
If a country delegates the execution of it's obligations to a private party, I would expect that it is still responsible for their fulfillment.
"The owners of PostNord Group are the state of Sweden (60 percent) and the state of Denmark (40 percent)."
It was a merger between the two countries postal services that were created over 300 years ago, it still has no private shareholders. It is still very closely tied to government rulings and laws around postal services.
Sure. But you can't sue Fannie Mae for denying you guarantees under the equal protection clause.
Unless the law specifically enshrines the privilege of one named private party above others?
Any of that make sense?
Yes! Sweden has laws around labour disputes. Again, these are deeply precedented. Even the experience of American companies being caught pants down in their respect is precedented.
But these things haven't been pitted against each other in court. The state has to provide these services according to law, but workers can strike according to law. So what happens when these two things oppose each other? That is what these lawsuits are supposed to figure out.
So it makes perfect sense to sue in this case. Clearing these things up is a really good thing.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/domstol-teslas-registreri...
Guarantee mortgages with the implicit backing of the U.S.? Yes.
There are loads of other examples of NGOs being granted limited monopolies. The NFL is a famous example. The MPAA and NCMEC others.
> "The owners of PostNord Group are the state of Sweden (60 percent) and the state of Denmark (40 percent)"
So no, it's a state-owned company. And most national postal services have some sort of equal-service guarantee in law, though I don't know about Sweden.