Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway

After having exhausted all nation remedies available, with the final decision from the Norwegian Supreme Court issued on December 22, 2020, two NGOs (Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth (Nature and Youth)) and six individuals, filed an application before the European Court of Human Rights against the Norwegian government. For a summary of the case in Norway, see here. They argue that the Norwegian government (the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy), in issuing new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic (Barents Sea) that will allow new fossil fuels to market from 2035 and beyond, violated plaintiff's rights under Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private life and family life and home) of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also allege that the Norwegian government has failed to adopt necessary and appropriate measures to address the risk of the climate crisis. Respondent has further failed to declare, describe and assess total climate effects, including exported emissions, of the continued and expanded extraction, thereby also infringing the Applicants’ rights. In addition, they argue that the Norwegian courts failed to adequately assess their claims and thus failed to provide plaintiffs access to an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 of the ECtHR. On December 16, 2021, the Court characterized the case as a potential “impact case” and communicated it to the Norwegian State. On January 10, 2022, the Court published a list of questions to the parties and has given the Norwegian Government until 13 April, 2022 to respond to the allegations of the environmental groups that new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic breaches fundamental freedoms. On April 27, 2022, Norway asked the European Court of Human Rights to dismiss the case or to find that there has been no violation. In its reply, the Norwegian State argues that the complaint should be declared inadmissible, and claims that Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine justifies the search for more oil and gas today, thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions for another 30 years or more. The following have been granted permission to intervene and submit their written comments: (i) the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights and the Environment, and on Toxics and Human rights, (ii) ClientEarth, (iii) the Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign, (iv) the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions, (v) the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ International) and (vi) ICJ Norway. The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment on October 28, 2025, marking its first procedural climate-rights ruling. The Court emphasized that the scope of the case was determined by the subject matter of the domestic proceedings. Accordingly, it was limited to the decision-making process in one specific round of petroleum exploration licensing. The broader challenge to Norway’s overall climate or petroleum policy—such as the alleged failure to phase out future oil production—was therefore excluded from the Court’s review. The Court found it unnecessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 2 (right to life) separately. When assessing environmental issues under Article 8 (right to private and family life), the Court generally applies principles that overlap with those governing Article 2. The applicants had, moreover, advanced the same arguments under both provisions. Regarding admissibility under Article 8, the Court held that the six individual youth applicants had not demonstrated a sufficiently serious or individualized impact on their life, health, or well-being attributable to climate change. They had not shown any particular medical condition or other adverse effect that could not reasonably be mitigated through available adaptation measures in Norway. Relying on Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Court reaffirmed that, absent such “high-intensity exposure” or a “pressing need for individual protection,” the threshold for victim status was not met. In contrast, the two applicant organizations—Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth Norway (Natur og Ungdom)—satisfied the criteria for locus standi set out in KlimaSeniorinnen. The Court therefore declared their Article 8 complaint admissible and found Article 8 applicable to their case. On the merits, the Court articulated, for the first time, a procedural obligation under Article 8 in the climate context. States must conduct an adequate, timely, and comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) in good faith and based on the best available science before authorizing any potentially dangerous activity that may adversely affect individuals’ right to effective protection by State authorities from serious climate-related harms to life, health, well-being, and quality of life. This procedural safeguard, the Court noted, is a key factor in determining whether a State remains within its margin of appreciation. Specifically, for petroleum production projects, an EIA must at minimum: • Quantify all anticipated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including combustion (scope 3) emissions both within the country and abroad; • Assess whether the activity is compatible with national and international obligations to mitigate climate change; and • Ensure informed public consultation at a stage when all options remain open and pollution can still be prevented at source. Applying these principles to the case, the Court found no violation of Article 8. The challenged decision concerned exploration licenses (stage two of Norway’s three-stage petroleum licensing process). Under Norwegian law, extraction (stage three) cannot proceed without a comprehensive EIA. The Court was satisfied that the forthcoming production-stage review will include a full climate-impact assessment—covering combustion emissions and public consultation—before any extraction is authorized. Accordingly, it held that Norway had not breached Article 8 at this stage. The Court declared inadmissible the applicants’ complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 2 and 8, due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The claim had not been raised, even in substance, before domestic courts, depriving them of the opportunity to address or remedy the alleged violation. The Court likewise rejected the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 8. For the individual applicants, the claim was incompatible ratione materiae, as they lacked victim status under Article 8 and no separate Article 2 claim was examined. For the organizational applicants, the Court found the complaint manifestly ill-founded, noting no indication that the domestic judicial review had been insufficient to meet the standards of Article 13.