Judges ruled that Norway did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights when it issued oil exploration licenses in 2016. In a dismissed complaint, Greenpeace and Norway's largest youth organization Natur og Ungdom alleged that the consequences of the decisions made by the authorities in Oslo violated the right to life and respect for family life and home, protected by the Convention.
The article continues below the video
What did the European Court of Human Rights rule in the Norway case?
What effects must Norway assess when deciding on concessions?
Which organizations have filed a complaint against Norway?
What did Norway's energy minister say after the verdict was announced?
However, the Court emphasized that in environmental matters, especially those involving a high risk of damage, including oil and gas extraction, full and detailed analyzes of the climate impact of such decisions are necessary. They should include both emissions generated during extraction in the country and those resulting from the combustion of raw materials in the countries to which they will be exported. So far, when issuing mining licenses, similar analyzes have not been carried out.
Energy Minister Terje Aasland expressed satisfaction with the verdict in an interview with NRK television, emphasizing that the decision-making processes regarding the oil sector in Norway are “robust and democratic.”
The applicants welcome the judgment. “It's a historic day”
For the complaining organizations, the judgment will have a breakthrough significance. Although the Court rejected their appeal, they expect a profound change.
— This is a historic day for climate justice. The Court decided today that countries must assess the climate consequences before approving new oil deposits. Norway has not done this yet, Frode Pleym from Greenpeace Norge told PAP, referring to Tuesday's judgment of the Court in Strasbourg.
The case began in 2016, when the authorities in Oslo granted 10 oil exploration licenses. Greenpeace and Natur og Ungdom found that these decisions violated the constitution and human rights. After losing in Norwegian courts, the organizations took the case to Strasbourg. By exonerating the authorities in Oslo from liability, the Court imposed a new obligation on Norway – that future decisions on mining should be preceded by a comprehensive assessment of their effects on the climate.
