Judgment Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway - Deferring environmental impact assessment in respect of licences granting petroleum exploration did not breach the Convention

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 251 (2025)   28.10.2025   Deferring environmental impact assessment in respect of licences granting   petroleum exploration did not breach the Convention   The case of Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (application no. 34068/21) concerned the   procedural aspect of the obligation to effectively protect individuals from the serious adverse effects   of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life in the context of petroleum   exploration preceding extraction. On 10 June 2016 the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy   awarded ten exploration licences to 13 private companies for petroleum gas production. A judicial   review requested by the applicant organisations, Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth   Norway, of the validity of that decision was unsuccessful.   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,   that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the   European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the complaints introduced by the applicant   organisations.   The Court held, in particular, that when making a decision in the context of the environment and   climate change, the State had to carry out an adequate, timely and comprehensive environmental   impact assessment in good faith, and based on the best available science. While the processes   leading to the 2016 decision had not been fully comprehensive and, in particular, the assessment of   the activity’s climate impacts had been deferred, there was no indication that deferring such an   assessment had been inherently insufficient to support the State’s guarantees of respect for private   and family life within the meaning of the Convention.   The Court also found the complaints introduced by the individual applicants under Article 8 and by   all the applicants under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of   discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 were inadmissible.   Principal facts   The applicants are six Norwegian nationals born between 1995 and 2001 who live in Oslo, and two   non-governmental organisations, Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth Norway, based   in Norway. The individual applicants are all current or former members of Young Friends of the   Earth.   On 10 June 2016 the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy awarded ten licences to 13 private   companies for petroleum gas production on the Norwegian continental shelf, where Norway’s   offshore petroleum activities take place. The two applicant organisations sought a review of the   validity of that decision. On 4 January 2018 the Oslo City Court held that the decision had been valid.   On 22 December 2020 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants, holding, by a   majority of 11 votes to 4, that the decision granting the licences had been valid and finding that the   effects of possible future emissions as a result of the licences awarded did not constitute an   “immediate risk” and, consequently, that the issue did not fall within Article 8 of the Convention.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 June 2021.   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants   complained that, before issuing the petroleum production licences, the authorities had not   conducted an environmental impact assessment (“an EIA”) of the potential impact of petroleum   extraction on Norway’s obligations to mitigate climate change.   Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 2 and 8, the   applicants argued that Norway’s climate change policy and the outcome of the licensing round in   question had breached their rights. In particular, the policy had disproportionately prejudicial effects   on young people and members of the indigenous minority Sámi population. They complained that   they had not had access to an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 as the domestic courts’   assessment of their claims had been superficial and seriously erroneous.   The United Nations Special Rapporteurs on human rights and the environment and on toxics and   human rights; ClientEarth; the Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign; the European Network   of National Human Rights Institutions; the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ International);   and ICJ Norge, were granted leave to intervene as third parties.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Saadet Yüksel (Türkiye), President,   Arnfinn Bårdsen (Norway),   Jovan Ilievski (North Macedonia),   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir (Iceland),   Gediminas Sagatys (Lithuania),   Juha Lavapuro (Finland),   Hugh Mercer (the United Kingdom),   and also Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court observed that the applicants’ case differed from that of the applicants in Verein   KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (application no. 53600/20) as it concerned the   State’s procedural, rather than substantive obligations. The general principles elaborated in that   case would, however, guide the Court’s examination in this case.   It also noted that this case concerned the allegedly faulty decision-making process in one specific   round of licensing, which had been the subject matter of domestic proceedings brought by the   applicant organisations. It followed that the general complaint about Norwegian climate or   petroleum policy, namely about certain measures of climate change mitigation, such as the omission   to phase out petroleum production from undiscovered deposits, was outside the scope of the   Court’s examination.   On examining the individual applicants’ victim status, the applicant associations’ right to bring the   case to the Court (locus standi) and the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court found   that there was a sufficiently close link between the exploration-licensing procedure and the effects   of climate change on the lives, health, well-being and quality of life of individuals. While exploration   would not always, and certainly not automatically or unconditionally, be followed by extraction, in   Norway, it was both a legal and practical precondition for it. It found that the applicant organisations   had the right to bring the case in the proceedings, and Article 8 was applicable to their complaint.   Their complaint under that Article was therefore admissible.   2 As regards the individual applicants, while the Court did not dismiss the seriousness of conditions   such as climate anxiety or climate grief, it observed that their claims had not been supported by   medical evidence. Furthermore, the case file did not contain any other materials which would lead it   to conclude that they had been exposed to high intensity adverse effects of climate change which   had affected them personally, or that there was a pressing need to ensure their individual protection   from harmful effects of climate change on their human rights. It followed that the individual   applicants did not fulfil the criteria for victim status under the Convention, so their complaints were   inadmissible.   Article 2   Following the approach it had taken in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others, the Court   considered it appropriate to examine the applicant organisations’ complaints from the standpoint of   Article 8 only.   Article 8   When making a decision in the context of the environment and climate change, the State had to   carry out an adequate, timely and comprehensive environmental impact assessment (“an EIA”) in   good faith, and based on the best available science. In the context of petroleum production projects,   the EIA had to include, at the very least, a quantification of the greenhouse gas emissions   anticipated to be produced (including the combustion emissions both within the country and   abroad). Moreover, at the level of the public authorities, there had to be an assessment of whether   the activity was compatible with their obligations under national and international law to take   effective measures against the adverse effects of climate change. Lastly, informed public   consultation had to take place at a time when all options were still open and when pollution could   realistically be prevented at source.   Petroleum activities in Norway were highly regulated under a framework with three consecutive   stages. The first stage was the opening of an area to exploration, which, under domestic law, had to   be preceded by a strategic EIA conducted by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and by a public   consultation. The second stage was licensing, which corresponded to the exploration phase and did   not formally require any EIA or public consultation. The third and final stage was the Plan for   Development and Operation (“PDO”), which corresponded to petroleum extraction and had to, in   principle, be preceded by an EIA conducted by the licensee, as well as by a public consultation. In   certain circumstances, the requirement of an impact assessment could be waived. The second and   third stages of the administrative procedure could each be judicially reviewed.   The Court found that the impact assessment during the processes leading to the 2016 decision had   not been fully comprehensive. The relevant orientation paper had explicitly deferred the assessment   of climate effects, ecological relationships, ocean acidification, and so on, to the stage at which the   management plans would be laid. The Supreme Court’s judgment had, in turn, deferred the subject   of exported combustion emissions either to general climate policy or to any future PDO decisions.   That court had held that a failure to assess the effects of exported combustion emissions at the   strategic assessment stage could be remedied at a later procedural stage, namely, either through   the EIA at the PDO stage or through a general political decision to reduce petroleum activities   overall.   The Court noted that several petroleum extraction projects had apparently been authorised by the   Ministry without any assessment of their combustion emissions or their impact on climate change.   The Court agreed with the applicants that a widespread use of such a waiver could indeed   circumvent and, in reality, completely undermine, the very purpose of a comprehensive and timely   EIA, as a means of protection of the Convention rights against serious impacts of climate change on   the life, health, well-being and the quality of life of individuals.   3 The Court attached greater importance, however, to developments that had structurally reinforced   the guarantee to effectively implement the relevant procedural obligations as regards PDOs. Firstly,   the Supreme Court had clearly stated that the Norwegian authorities had a constitutional obligation   not to approve a PDO if that were so required by general considerations for the climate and   environment at the time. Secondly, the Court referred to the recent adoption of a ruling of the EFTA   Court (“European Free Trade Association”) in respect of domestic proceedings concerning three   projects in the North Sea. That court had found that the EIA Directive required a national court to   eliminate the unlawful consequences of a failure to carry out a full EIA which accounted for   petroleum combustion emissions. Regularisation was indeed permitted by conducting an   assessment while the project was under way or even after it had been completed, but only if it did   not serve to circumvent the law and if the assessment took a retrospective view of the   environmental impact of the project. Thirdly, the Court noted the official assurance from the   Government that an assessment of combustion emissions, and an informed public consultation   would take place before the decision was made.   It could not be said that there was any structural problem that would undermine the conclusion that   the above legal framework was being implemented effectively. There was no indication that a   deferred EIA was inherently insufficient to support the State’s guarantees of respect for private and   family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.   There had therefore been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.   Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8   No such complaint had been made, even in substance, during the course of the domestic judicial   review proceedings. The complaint was therefore inadmissible.   Article 13   The Court was satisfied that the domestic courts had duly considered the case. The Supreme Court   had devoted a separate section of its judgment to a comprehensive consideration of whether   Convention rights had been engaged, addressing the applicants’ arguments and discussing the   Court’s rulings. The fact that the Supreme Court’s conclusion on whether Convention rights had   been engaged could be called into question in the light of the Court’s findings in the case did not   mean that the assessment had been insufficient or that it had not been diligently undertaken.   Having regard to the reasons given by the domestic courts for their findings, the Court considered   that there was no indication that the extent of their review had not been sufficient to comply with   the Convention. The complaint was inadmissible.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   4 Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   5