The European Court of Human Rights has held that Norway did not violate the Convention when issuing ten petroleum exploration licences in 2016. The case was brought by six young Norwegian applicants and two environmental organisations, Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth Norway, who argued that the State had failed to conduct an adequate environmental impact assessment before awarding the licences.
The applicants challenged the licensing round through the domestic courts without success. In December 2020 the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the licences, finding that potential future combustion emissions did not constitute an immediate risk within the meaning of Article 8.
Before the Strasbourg Court the applicants alleged breaches of Articles 2, 8 and 14, arguing that Norway had not assessed the climate effects of future petroleum extraction and that the licensing decision disproportionately affected young people and the Sámi minority. They also claimed they lacked an effective remedy under Article 13.
The Court distinguished the case from KlimaSeniorinnen, noting that it concerned procedural obligations rather than the State’s substantive climate policies. It confirmed that Article 8 applied to the organisations’ complaint, given the close link between exploration licensing and the potential climate impacts on individuals. However, the individual applicants were found not to have victim status, as there was no medical evidence of personal harm or indication of exposure to intense climate related effects.
On the merits, the Court examined Norway’s three stage regulatory framework for petroleum activities, which requires a strategic impact assessment at the opening stage and environmental assessments and consultation at the development stage. It accepted that the 2016 impact assessment had deferred certain climate related evaluations and that some extraction projects had proceeded without an assessment of combustion emissions. Nonetheless, the Court placed significant weight on later legal developments. These included the Supreme Court’s confirmation that PDO approvals must comply with constitutional environmental obligations, an EFTA Court judgment requiring full assessments that include combustion emissions, and the Norwegian Government’s assurance that future decisions will include such assessments and public consultation.
Given these safeguards, the Court found no structural deficiency in the framework or its implementation and held that there had been no violation of Article 8.
The Article 14 complaint was deemed inadmissible because it had not been raised before the domestic courts. The Article 13 complaint also failed, with the Court finding that the domestic courts had carried out a detailed and diligent review of the applicants’ claims.