Föreningen Greenpeace Norden and Natur og Ungdom v. State of Norway (EFTA Court Advisory Opinion)

On June 29, 2023, Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth filed a lawsuit before the Oslo District Court challenging the legality of three administrative decisions by Norway’s Ministry of Energy approving development and operation plans (PUDs) for the Breidablikk, Yggdrasil, and Tyrving oil and gas fields in the North Sea (Greenpeace Nordic and Nature & Youth v. Energy Ministry (The North Sea Fields Case). The plaintiffs argued that the approvals were unlawful due to the absence of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) covering downstream (Scope 3) greenhouse gas emissions from the eventual combustion of the extracted oil and gas. The Oslo District Court referred several questions to the EFTA Court regarding the proper interpretation of the EIA Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU), as incorporated into the EEA Agreement. Core Legal Issues: 1. Whether greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the combustion of petroleum and natural gas extracted under a project (and later sold to third parties) constitute “effects” under Article 3(1) of the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU). 2. Whether national courts must nullify the consequences of unlawfully granted development consents that lack an adequate environmental impact assessment (EIA), specifically regarding climate impacts. 3. Whether a national court may retroactively waive the EIA obligation if it finds that the procedural failure had no influence on the decision outcome. On May 21, 2025, the EFTA Court issued an advisory opinion confirming that: Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the combustion of extracted oil and gas must be considered “likely significant effects” under Article 3 of the EIA Directive. Such emissions must be assessed before development consent is granted, and this obligation applies even if combustion occurs outside the project site or jurisdiction. National courts are required to take all necessary measures to address the consequences of an unlawful approval granted without a proper EIA, including revocation, invalidation, or suspension of the approval. The fact that an approval might have been issued even after a full assessment does not cure the procedural failure to conduct the EIA beforehand. The assessment must be publicly available and may not be substituted by speculative arguments about market effects or alternative emissions scenarios.