European Court of Human Rights clarifies environmental impact assessment requirements in climate cases

In 2016, Norway awarded ten petroleum exploration licences in the 23rd licensing round in the south-eastern Barents Sea. Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth Norway (Natur og Ungdom) challenged this decision, arguing it violated both the Norwegian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The case proceeded up through the Norwegian court system. On 22 December 2020, the Supreme Court of Norway, in plenary, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the validity of the licensing awards. Following the Supreme Court judgment, Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

Since the 2020 Norwegian judgment, the legal landscape has evolved significantly through domestic and international case law. This includes e.g. the Finch (2024) and Rosebank (2025) cases in the UK, the EFTA Court's advisory opinion (2025) in connection with another Norwegian climate case currently before the Borgarting Court of Appeal, and ECtHR's Grand Chamber judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (KlimaSeniorinnen) in 2024. The latter case established that States must ensure effective protection against serious climate-related risks to life, health, well-being and quality of life under Article 8, while the others concern the obligation to consider “scope 3 emissions” or “combustion emissions" as part of environmental impact assessments related to petroleum extraction projects.

In the current case, the organisations complained that the 2016 licensing award violated Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life). In line with its previous approach in the KlimaSeniorinnen case, the ECtHR considered the complaints under Article 8 only and found it unnecessary to consider Article 2 separately.

Procedural Obligations under Article 8

Drawing on recent national and international case law, the Court established that an adequate, timely and comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA), in good faith and based on the best available science, must be conducted before authorising a potentially harmful activity that may negatively affect individuals' right to effective protection from serious adverse effects of climate change.

For petroleum projects, the EIA must, as a minimum: quantify anticipated greenhouse gas emissions (including combustion emissions both domestically and abroad); assess whether the activity is compatible with national and international climate obligations; and ensure informed public consultation while all options are still open. An assessment after the approval of a project, will not be sufficient.

The ECtHR found that there is a sufficiently close link between petroleum exploration licensing and serious adverse effects of climate change. Whilst exploration will not always be followed by extraction, the Court placed emphasis on the fact that extraction is both a legal and a practical precondition for it. In other words; petroleum would not be extracted without the opening of an area and the granting of licenses.

The Court's Assessment of Norway's Multi-Stage System

Norway's petroleum licensing operates in three stages: opening (with strategic environmental assessment), licensing (with no formal EIA requirement), and Plan for Development and Operation (PDO) approval (requiring project-level EIA, though waivers are possible).

The Court agreed with the applicants that the processes leading to the 2016 decision were not fully comprehensive, as climate effects and exported combustion emissions were deferred to later stages. The Court also noted that widespread use of EIA waivers at the PDO stage could circumvent and potentially undermine the purpose of a timely and comprehensive EIA.

However, the Court accepted that deficiencies could be remedied at the PDO stage, persuaded by three factors: (1) the Supreme Court of Norway's statement that authorities have a constitutional obligation not to approve a PDO if climate and environmental considerations so justify; (2) the EFTA Court's advisory opinion in 2025 requiring that failures to conduct full EIAs must be remedied without allowing circumvention of EEA law; and (3) the Government's assurances that climate impacts of petroleum production and combustion emissions would be assessed in all new PDO decisions.

On this basis, the Court was satisfied that the PDO stage would involve a comprehensive assessment of climate effects, including combustion emissions, with informed public consultation before any decision is taken.

Whilst the Court found no violation of Article 8, the judgment rests on the explicit requirement that comprehensive environmental impact assessments, including assessment of combustion emissions and informed public consultation, must be carried out before any production is approved. The decision must be read in light of the recent developments in climate litigation, and provides important guidance on procedural obligations States must fulfil when authorising activities with potential negative climate impacts.