SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GREENPEACE NORDIC AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
(Application no. 34068/21)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 34 • Victim • Locus standi • Sufficiently close link between disputed decision granting petroleum exploration licences and serious adverse effects of climate change on individuals’ lives, health, well-being and quality of life • Criteria set out in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland [GC] applied • In case-circumstances individual applicants did not meet the threshold for fulfilling victim status criteria (incompatible ratione personae) • Applicant organisations fulfilled relevant criteria (locus standi) and thus had standing to act on behalf of their members and/or other affected individuals
Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private and family life • Alleged faulty decision-making process in a round of licensing of petroleum exploration preceding petroleum production • Case concerning the State’s procedural obligations in climate-change context rather than the substantive ones as in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others • Approach and general principles in the Court’s case-law concerning the environment and in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others applied mutatis mutandis • Procedural obligation to conduct an adequate, timely and comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) in good faith and based on the best available science before authorising a potentially dangerous activity that might be harmful to the individual’s right to effective State protection from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life • Setting out of minimum requirements for public authorities in the context of petroleum production projects • Wide margin of appreciation • Adherence by Norway to international legal framework on climate change and requisite objectives and goals set by the domestic framework under which petroleum activities were highly regulated • Licencing process in question not fully comprehensive in view of the deferral of the assessment of significant climate effects and of exported combustion emissions to a later procedural stage • Shortcomings in the EIA decision-making process could be remedied at the last stage of the process – the Plan for Development and Operation (PDO) stage • Sufficient guarantees at that stage to ensure the effective implementation of the State’s relevant procedural obligations including a comprehensive EIA • No indication of a structural problem or that a deferred EIA was inherently insufficient to support Art 8 State guarantees • Open to persons affected by climate change risks linked to petroleum production to effectively challenge the authorisation of a project
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
28 October 2025
 
FINAL
 
28/01/2026
 
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
THE FACTS
I. THE APPLICANTS’ SITUATION
A. Applicant organisations
B. Individual applicants
II. PETROLEUM ACTIVITIES ON THE NORWEGIAN CONTINENTAL SHELF, INCLUDING IN THE BARENTS SEA
A. Background information
B. Opening of the south Barents Sea for petroleum activities
C. Opening of the south-east Barents Sea for petroleum activities
1. Impact assessment
2. 2012-2013 Orientation paper
D. The 23rd licensing round
III. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE 2016 DECISION ON THE 23rd LICENSING ROUND
IV. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
I. DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Constitution
B. Climate law
C. Environmental Information Act
D. Regulations on petroleum activities
1. Opening of new areas with a view to granting production licences
2. Production licence
3. Plan for Development and Operation (PDO)
E. The Disputes Act
F. The Judgment of the Oslo District Court of 18 January 2024
II. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS
A. International law on climate change
B. The Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea on climate change and international law
C. The Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Climate emergency and human rights
D. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change
E. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (“the Aarhus Convention”)
F. Espoo Convention on EIAs in a Transboundary Context and its Strategic Environmental Assessment Protocol
G. EEA and European Union law on environmental assessment
1. EEA Agreement
2. EU Directives
(a) SEA Directive
(b) EIA Directive
3. Relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”)
4. The EFTA Court’s advisory opinion of 21 May 2025
H. The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change
I. The UN Environment Programme
III. RELEVANT COMPARATIVE LAW MATERIALS
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 2 AND 8 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The parties’ submissions
1. The applicants
(a) Legal standing
(i) The victim status of the individual applicants
(ii) Locus standi of the applicant organisations
(b) Applicability of the relevant Convention provisions
(c) Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
(d) Merits
(i) Main grievances
(α) Scope of adequate impact assessment
(β) Non-compliance with the SEA Directive and the applicants right to information
(γ) Practical consequences of postponing the assessment to the PDO stage
(ii) Obligation to take account of exported emissions
2. The Government
(a) Legal standing
(b) Applicability of the relevant Convention provisions
(c) Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
(d) Merits
B. The third‑party interveners
1. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment and the Special Rapporteur on toxic substances and human rights
2. The European Network of National Human Rights Institutions
3. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ International) and ICJ Norge
4. ClientEarth
5. The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign
6. The parties’ comments on the third-party interveners’ submissions
C. The Court’s assessment
1. Preliminary points
2. Admissibility
(a) Victim status/locus standi (representation)
(i) General principles
(ii) Application of these principles to the present case
(b) Applicability of Article 8 of the Convention
(i) General principles
(ii) Application of these principles to the present case
(α) Whether there is a sufficiently close link between the 23rd licensing of petroleum exploration and climate change
(β) Whether the individual applicants have victim status
(γ) Whether the applicant organisations have locus standi and whether Article 8 is applicable to their complaint
(iii) Conclusion on the admissibility of the applicant organisations’ Article 8 complaint
3. Merits
(a) General principles
(b) Application of these principles to the present case
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 2 AND 8 OF THE CONVENTION
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

Outcome for Article 8: no_violation