The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Norway did not breach the Convention by postponing its climate impact assessment when awarding ten oil exploration licences in 2016. In a unanimous decision, the judges rejected the legal challenge brought by two non-governmental organisations questioning the legality of the process.
A structured legal framework in three stages
The case involved Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth Norway, who contested the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy’s decision to grant licences to thirteen private companies. The applicants argued that the absence of an immediate climate impact assessment, particularly regarding combustion emissions, infringed upon their rights to private life and a safe environment under the Convention.
The Court acknowledged that oil exploration, even without automatic extraction, could be linked to significant climate impacts. However, it found that the Norwegian legal framework provided adequate safeguards, particularly through the option of conducting a full assessment during the later stage known as the Plan for Development and Operation (PDO), a prerequisite for any production approval.
Domestic judicial remedies deemed sufficient
The legal challenge was initially dismissed by Norwegian courts and later confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020, which ruled that the risks cited by the applicants were not sufficiently immediate to invalidate the licences.
The European Court held that national courts had conducted a thorough review of the claims and had addressed the applicants’ concerns with detailed reasoning. It rejected additional arguments based on Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention due to a lack of evidence for discrimination or ineffective legal remedies.
A significant ruling for the energy sector
The ruling underlined that deferring an environmental impact assessment is not incompatible with European procedural obligations, provided that the legal framework allows for effective and binding regularisation. The Court reiterated that such assessments must be based on available scientific data and carried out in good faith before any irreversible decisions.
Norway’s system is based on three sequential stages: the opening of areas for exploration, the awarding of licences, and the approval of a development plan subject to environmental assessment. The Court considered constitutional guarantees that prohibit final project authorisation if it conflicts with national climate objectives.
