Factual and legal background

Norwegian petroleum activity

Norway’s offshore petroleum activity takes place on the Norwegian Continental shelf which comprises of the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea. About 40% of the areas expected to have petroleum have been explored.

There are three phases of petroleum activities in Norway. First, the opening of an area for exploration. Second, the licensing phase which authorises exploration of specific areas for investigation. Third, the production phase. This requires licensees to apply for and obtain approval for a plan for development and operations (“PDO”) of the petroleum discovery. The PDO is subject to an environmental assessment under the EIA directive. 

The challenge brought by the applicants was to a decision in June 2016 to issue licenses for exploration of petroleum (i.e. the second phase).

EFTA Advisory Opinion (Norway v Greenpeace Nordic [2025] 3 CMLR 25)

The claim before the ECtHR is not the only claim that Greenpeace Nordic has brought in relation to the Norwegian Government’s authorisation of petroleum production. On 29 June 2023, Greenpeace Norway instituted legal proceedings in Norway, challenging the Ministry of Energy’s approval of a plan for development and operations for three petroleum projects in the North Sea.

Two of the approvals had been subject to environmental impact assessments pursuant to national law implementing the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU). One of the approvals had been exempted under national law. Of the two assessments carried out, neither assessed the environmental impacts of the eventual combustion of the extracted oil (i.e. scope three emissions).

In the domestic litigation, Greenpeace Nordic argued that the EIA Directive required scope three emissions to be assessed whilst the Norwegian Government rejected this. The domestic courts referred the question of whether scope three emissions were an environmental “effect” under Article 3(1) of the EIA Directive to the European Free Trade Agreement Court (“EFTA”) which has jurisdiction over the European Economic Area (“EEA”). The EIA Directive was incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA joint Committee on 7 December 2012.

Although the EFTA Court in its Advisory Opinion of the 21 May 2025 did not refer to R (Finch) v Surrey County Council [2024] UKSC 20 in its advisory opinion, it did reach the same conclusion that scope three emissions are an environmental “effect” of oil extraction and should be taken into account in an environmental impact assessment authorising a PDO.

ECtHR judgment

Standing

Of the 8 applicants, only the two organisations were granted standing by the ECtHR.

The Court found that none of the individuals satisfied the “especially high” threshold for establishing standing as an individual in climate change cases as set out in Verein Klimaseniorinnen v Switzerland [2024] ECHR 304, no 53600/20 (paras. 287 and 306, and see here for an insightful blog by Claire Nevin).

The individuals – all young persons – claimed that they (and the younger generations) would bear the heavier burden of climate change adaption and its impacts. They also claimed that they were suffering from climate anxiety and climate grief. The Court, however, found that none of the victims had substantiated any of their claims with evidence that demonstrated the hardships they suffered were of the requisite ‘high intensity’.

The two organisations – Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth – were granted standing. The Court was satisfied that they were a collective means of defending the rights and interests of the threats of climate change in Norway and that it was in the interests of justice to grant them standing (para. 312).

Applicability of Article 8

To determine if Article 8 was applicable, the Court assessed whether there was a sufficiently close link between the licensing of petroleum exploration and climate change.

The Court was satisfied that whilst exploration will not always be followed by extraction of petroleum, it is a necessary precondition for it to occur. Noting the reasoning of Finch, the ECtHR extended the logic of the UKSC, that petroleum would not be extracted “but for” the opening of an area for extraction and the granting of exploration licences.

The Court also noted that oil and gas extraction was the most important source of Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emissions of Norway. As such, it accepted that there was a sufficiently close link between the disputed procedure for the licensing of exploration and the serious adverse effects of climate change on the lives, health and well being and quality of life of individuals (paras. 292-298).

Merits

Principles

As a preliminary point under this heading, it is worth noting that the Court delimited the scope of the applicant’s complaint to just the procedural elements of their complaint; i.e. whether Norway had breached its procedural obligation to conduct an adequate, timely and comprehensive environmental impact assessment in good faith, based on the best available science. The Court did not examine any substantive complaints regarding Norway’s petroleum policy (para. 282).

The scope of a State’s procedural obligations in the context of climate change is to adopt, and to effectively apply in practice, regulations and measures capable of mitigating the existing and potentially irreversible future effects of climate change. This includes undertaking an “an adequate, timely and comprehensive environmental impact assessment in good faith and based on the best available science[... It] must be conducted before authorising a potentially dangerous activity that may be harmful to the right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life” (para. 318).

In the context of petroleum production, the Court found that the environmental impact assessment must include, at a minimum, a quantification of the GHG emissions anticipated to be produced, including combustion emissions both within the country and abroad (i.e. scope three emissions). Furthermore, there must be an assessment of whether the activity is compatible with obligations under national and international law to take effective measures against the adverse effects of climate change. Lastly, informed public consultation must take place at a time when all options are still open and when pollution can realistically be prevented at source (para. 319).

The ECtHR noted that these conclusions on what was required under the procedural obligations of Article 8 ECHR in the context of climate change were consistent with recent rulings of other international tribunals, including the ICJ, IACtHR, EFTA and ITLOS. Fore recent blog posts discussing these decisions, see here (IACtHR) and here (ICJ) and here (ITLOS).

Consideration of the claims

The Court identified that applicants had made two main complaints regarding the environmental impact assessments for the exploration licences. First, there was an absence of adequate assessment of climate-related harm before the licences were granted. Second, the applicants contended that the Supreme Court of Norway was wrong to conclude that assessment of significant environmental effects could be deferred to the later PDO stage (recall that the licensing stage is the second of a three stage phase process that results in extraction of petroleum).

Whilst the Court had some sympathy with the complaint that the environmental impact assessment undertaken at the licensing phase was not comprehensive (para. 330), the Court did not find a violation of Article 8. Overall, the Court was satisfied that the decision-making process had adequate safeguards.

The Court accepted the Norwegian Government’s argument that an exploration licence did not guarantee authorisation would be granted for extraction of petroleum. This was because the authorities had a constitutional obligation, when considering if a PDO licence should be granted, to consider the right to a healthy environment under Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution. As such, the authorisation of extraction was not an inevitable consequence of granting an exploration licence, even if it was a necessary precondition.

The ECtHR also placed significant reliance on the recent EFTA Court Advisory Opinion (see above) which did concern an impact assessment at the PDO stage of decision-making. The ECtHR noted that as a result of this ruling, and Norway’s membership of EFTA, Norway would have to undertake a comprehensive environmental impact assessment that included scope three emissions before granting the PDO authorisation. The Court was satisfied that this meant the process of granting rights to extract petroleum at the PDO stage was sufficiently robust. Therefore, it was not necessary to consider by way of an environmental impact assessment scope three emissions at the exploration licensing stage of petroleum activities (paras. 331-337).

The Court concluded by noting that there were no indications of structural problems that would undermine the conclusion that Norwegian’s legal framework was not being implemented effectively.

Reflections

There are two reflections to make on this case. First, on the Court’s approach to standing in climate change cases. Second, the implication for domestic challenges to Governmental decision-making.

(1) Standing

This case is one of the first climate change cases to be decided since Klimaseniorinnen where the ECtHR modified its standing rules to accommodate the unique challenges of climate change. The approach of the ECtHR in this case, however, shows an unwillingness to modify or relax those standing rules any further.

All of the individual applicants claimed that they experienced high intensity exposure to the effects of climate change due to their youth and/or their identity as members of the Sámi people whose way of life is threatened by climate change. Whilst the Court noted these arguments, it found that the individual applicants had failed to demonstrate that the specific hardships claimed, whether as a result of their age of cultural identity, had the required “high intensity” to establish standing. The Court noted that the case file included no evidence or other material that showed the individuals had been subjected to a high intensity of exposure which had affected them personally.

Arguably, this shows the Court is willing to take a robust approach to standing of individuals in climate change cases. Such a robust approach is consistent with its other determination since Klimaseniorinnen. In De Conto v. Italy and 32 Others (no. 14620/21), the Court similarly refused individuals standing on the basis that none of documents submitted showed that the applicant was subjected to a high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change.

(2) Environmental Impact Assessments

The ECtHR ultimately found no violation in this case. A large part of the reasoning in that respect was the expectation that a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment, which complied with the EIA Directive, would be undertaken at the PDO authorisation stage. This provided the Court with adequate comfort that the overall decision-making process regarding petroleum exploration and extraction provided ample opportunity to consider the scope three emissions of petroleum extraction.

It is implicit in the reasoning that undertaking an EIA Directive compliant environmental impact assessment is sufficient to comply with the procedural obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court did not indicate that the Convention requires any greater procedural rigour than the standard set by the EFTA Court in its Advisory Opinion. The significance of this for domestic litigation is that procedural human rights arguments are unlikely to succeed unless a Claimant can show a failure to comply with the EIA Directive in decision-making. Therefore, although this decision affirms the importance of the procedural duties under the Convention, it may have the practical effect of emptying procedure-based human rights arguments of any independent force in domestic litigation concerning petroleum authorisation, and potentially other decisions where environmental impact assessments are undertaken.

An additional implication for domestic litigation concerns the stage of decision-making. It is clear from the ECtHR’s decision, that where there is a multi-stage consenting process to climate-impacting activities, such as petroleum extraction, a State is not in breach of its procedural obligations under the Convention if it reserves its environmental impact assessment to the latter stages of that authorisation process. For further discussion on the scope for human rights environmental claims, see this blog post by Richard Honey KC.

Emma Rowland is a barrister at Francis Taylor Building.