CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 28 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s695099B3 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAB539EC { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC0FFF6FB { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAB580DD2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFC6C05FC { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC15FC45D { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB12058F2 { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF5711BAC { width:6.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70E0A597 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 85.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s91A62531 { width:11.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5336AA44 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 102.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s8E0B8B88 { width:8.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF53451E7 { width:5.9pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s72A8FB50 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD76C0840 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 119.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s31A6B95 { width:4.56pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC9B5F0A5 { width:4.59pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s35B94E0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sBB31CFFC { width:3.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s98FF0DB { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5085FF6A { font-size:8pt; text-transform:none; vertical-align:super } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF83AE8C9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sEA7A29CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:sub } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sB965C79D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.75pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29A5A94F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:20.17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:5.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sC6B6F7B3 { width:150.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF11B41DF { width:33.58%; border-collapse:collapse } .s912C3291 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s15136ED7 { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2904BC84 { width:22.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1326E891 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5107D7ED { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD6EF0C9E { width:22.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } 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 23 rd licensing round III.   JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE 2016 DECISION ON THE 23 rd 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 OPERATIVE PROVISIONS APPENDIX In the case of Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Saadet Yüksel , President ,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Jovan Ilievski,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   34068/21) against the Kingdom of Norway lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six individual Norwegian nationals and by two non-governmental organisations registered in Norway (“the applicants”) on 15 June 2021; the decision to give notice to the Norwegian Government (“the   Government”) of the application; the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on human rights and the environment and on toxics and human rights; ClientEarth; the Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign; the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions; and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ International) and ICJ Norge, which were granted leave to intervene as third parties by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the procedural aspect of the obligation to effectively protect individuals from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life. It primarily raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention in that it is alleged that there were shortcomings in the decision-making process regarding an environmental impact assessment during the licensing process for petroleum exploration preceding petroleum production. THE FACTS 2.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are two non-governmental organisations, Greenpeace Nordic ( Foreningen Greenpeace Norden ) and Young Friends of the Earth (also known as Nature and Youth Norway, Natur og Ungdom ), and six individuals who are current or former full members of Young Friends of the Earth. The applicants were represented by Ms C. Hambro, Mr E. Feinberg and Ms J. Sandvig, lawyers practising in Oslo. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms H. Busch, of the Attorney General’s Office (Civil Matters), assisted by G. Østerman Thengs, an advocate at the same office. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. THE APPLICANTS’ SITUATION Applicant organisations 5 .     Greenpeace Nordic (the first applicant) has been active in Norway since 1998 as a Norwegian-registered non-profit association. It pursues collective action to protect human rights against threats from climate change, acting on behalf of affected individuals in Norway. The organisation’s statute provides that the organisation’s purpose is to “expose global environmental problems and to advocate for solutions essential to a green and peaceful future”. 6 .     Greenpeace Nordic is not a membership organisation but acts as a vehicle for the collective defence of the rights and interests of individuals against the threat of climate change in Norway, with substantial support from Norwegian civil society. Greenpeace Nordic does not accept funding from governments or companies. Nearly 80% of its work in the Nordic countries is funded by supporters or donors who enable Greenpeace Nordic to advocate for environmental and human rights on their behalf. In Norway, there has been significant growth in the number of supporters and donors – from 3,023 supporters in 2012 to 17,493 by the end of 2023. 7 .     Young Friends of the Earth (the eighth applicant) was established in Norway in 1967. It is Norway’s largest and most influential environmental youth association, with 5,224 individual full members aged thirteen to twenty-five. It operates as a democratic, member-based organisation, addressing the voices and concerns of its members. Several members of the association belong to the indigenous Sámi community. The organisation’s purposes include working for the “protection of the world’s resources” by ensuring that “all forms of pollution and environmental destruction are kept at levels that nature can tolerate.” The association’s formal Fundamental View sets out a commitment to fostering a “society based on respect for all people” and a system that meets people’s essential needs. 8 .     Young Friends of the Earth in Norway protects its members’ interests through lobbying politicians, influencing public opinion, bringing cases before the courts, participating in public hearings, and facilitating direct action. Individual applicants 9 .     According to the information the Court has, all six individual applicants have been living in Oslo at least since the date the present application was filed. They either were or have been full members of Young Friends of the Earth for many years. They were either closely engaged in or followed the domestic proceedings that are the subject of the present application. Currently, they all either actively participate in or follow the association’s activities. 10 .     Mr Bjørn (the second applicant) was employed by Young Friends of the Earth in 2017. He was engaged in promoting sustainable fisheries and agriculture in Norway. The second applicant, who belongs to the Sea Sámi culture, was concerned about the impact of climate change on his people’s way of life. He submitted that the Sea Sámi people were closely linked to nature in that they depended on the traditional harvesting of the oceans. The applicant stated that he feared that petroleum production in the Barents Sea would have serious negative consequences for the local fish stocks. He referred to a crisis in reindeer herding that had occurred locally in 2020 when warmer weather had led to a rain-on-snow event: this is when rain falls on snow and then freezes, impeding the access of reindeer to lichen, their main food source in the winter. 11.     Ms Chamberlain (the third applicant) declared to have worked with Young Friends of the Earth on Norwegian gas and oil policy. She stated that she felt hopeless about the future and that she had suffered from several episodes of depression and climate anxiety – an all-encompassing fear about the future of those directly affected by climate change in the form of hunger, droughts, or lack of hope or optimism. The applicant claimed to have periodically missed school and to have been unable to bear to listen to lessons or news about climate change. 12 .     Mr Eiterjord (the fourth applicant) stated that the ongoing climate crisis threatened to make his life and the life of other young people in Norway increasingly difficult, posing unprecedented challenges of food instability, sudden and extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. He also claimed that his generation would have to bear the heavy burden of climate adaptation. 13.     Ms Gylver (the fifth applicant) stated that climate change had affected her lifestyle and important life choices. It had also made her feel “climate sorrow”, a form of grief for everything that would inevitably be gone because of climate change. 14 .     Ms Isaksen (the sixth applicant) was employed by Young Friends of the Earth. She was born in the northernmost part of Norway (Finnmark). She submitted that she identified as a Norwegian and Sámi artist and environmentalist, and used her platform to spread awareness about the petroleum industry in Norway. She claimed that she was worried and felt hopeless about the climate, and was sorry for the loss of biodiversity and ecosystems. She said that she was particularly concerned about the destruction of the forests in her region by a birch beetle that was out of control because of milder winters. She also submitted that the Tana River, which had since time immemorial been a source of life and sustenance for the people of the municipality she came from, was now closed to salmon fishing because of the effects of climate change. She submitted that she feared that climate change would force her people to abandon their traditional way of life. 15 .     Ms Skjodvaer (the seventh applicant) had previously been a chair of the organisation. She submitted that she had been born into a small community north of the Arctic Circle, where the impact of climate change was predicted to be severe. In particular, because of the warming of the oceans, the cod that her population had depended on for thousands of years was now migrating farther north. She also reported that reindeer herders struggled to find grazing land because of uneven winters. The applicant stated that she had been worried that climate change would put the Sámi livelihood and culture at risk. She said that these concerns affected her personal choice as to whether or not she would have children. PETROLEUM ACTIVITIES ON THE NORWEGIAN CONTINENTAL SHELF, INCLUDING IN THE BARENTS SEA Background information 16 .     Norway’s offshore petroleum activities take place on the Norwegian continental shelf (“NCS”), which comprises the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea. The NCS covers 2,039,951 km 2 . An orientation paper issued in 2012-2013 (report to the Storting , see paragraph 31 below) put the area that may contain petroleum at about half, with 40% of the areas where petroleum is expected to be found having already been exploited. 17.     The first licensing round on the NCS was announced in 1965 (see paragraph 51 below). The first major discovery of oil was made in 1969, with production commencing in 1971. There have been many further discoveries on the NCS since then, and a total of 3,196 blocks (units used during licensing stage, referring to a designated area of offshore territory that are offered by a regulatory body to companies for exploration) have been awarded. As of December 2020, there was activity in 88 fields (units used during development and production stage, referring to physical reservoirs of discovered and confirmed hydrocarbons, located underground or beneath the seabed). Of the above-mentioned 3,196 blocks, 663 have been awarded in the Barents Sea. 18 .     The data provided by the Norwegian Environment Agency ( Miljødirektoratet ) show oil and gas extraction to be the most significant source of Norway’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. In 2024, it represented approximately 24% (11 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents (MtCO₂)) of the country’s overall 45MtCO₂. Norway’s overall GHG emissions that year decreased by 12.4% from the figures for 1990. Its 2024 emissions from oil and gas extraction show an increase of 34% from the 1990 figures, with a decrease of 4.6% from 2023. Opening of the south Barents Sea for petroleum activities 19 .     In 1989, the south Barents Sea was opened for exploration drilling, following a strategic impact assessment. 20.     The south Barents Sea currently has three fields in operation (Snøhvit, for gas, operating since 2007, and Goliat and Johan Castberg, for oil, operating since 2016 and 2024, respectively). Opening of the south-east Barents Sea for petroleum activities 21.     On 26 April 2013 the Parliament ( Storting ) gave its consent to the opening of the south-east Barents Sea for exploration under section 3-1 of the Petroleum Act (see paragraph 99 below) with a view to granting petroleum production licences. 22.     As stated in the 2012-2013 orientation paper submitted to the Storting (see paragraph 31 below), the purpose of the opening process was to allow scientific examination of an area so that the Storting could decide whether to open it up for petroleum activities. 23.     In general, an opening process would consist of two main parts. One part was a mapping of the geology and the resource potential of the area. The surveys would be carried out by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. The second, and key, part was an impact assessment of the likely commercial, environmental and social impacts of petroleum activities in the area. An impact assessment was prepared under the guidance of the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (“the Ministry”). Impact assessment 24.     In the process leading up to the decision to open the south-east Barents Sea for petroleum activities, an impact assessment was conducted for that area. 25 .     The 2012-2013 orientation paper (see paragraph 31 below) described the impact assessment as comprising a total of twenty-four scientific studies and assessments conducted by independent research groups and consultants. A third of those studies related to the environment and climate, in particular meteorology, polar bear presence, and fishing activities. Two scenarios had been established for oil and gas activities in the work on the impact assessment. 26.     The assessment was based on an impact assessment programme (see paragraph 101 below) which had looked at some impacts of the opening of the south-east Barents Sea for petroleum activities on the climate. The programme was put out for public consultation between November 2011 and February 2012. Responses to the consultation were received from thirty-six stakeholders. During the consultation, the applicant organisations and other bodies submitted that an increase in petroleum activities would be incompatible with Norway’s national and international climate obligations. In the Government’s submission, which was not contested by the applicants, during the consultation the entities referred to reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) and argued that the opening of a new area would undermine the national target for the reduction of GHG emissions by 2020 and would violate Norway’s international climate change obligations. Those bodies did not specify whether they were referring to GHG emissions in Norway or abroad. 27 .     The ensuing impact assessment report (see paragraph 101 below) contained a series of conclusions about environmental impacts, such as the minor impact of discharges of chemicals into water; the marginal and localised impacts of new infrastructure on the landscape; or the impact on seabirds of incidental oil spills or gas blowouts, something of which there was a small risk. 28 .     The report also described low and high scenarios for emissions related to future petroleum production in the area it looked at. It forecast CO 2 emissions ranging from 300,000 tonnes to 600,000 tonnes per year for the high scenario. The NO X (nitric oxide) emissions were forecast to range from to 800 tonnes to 1,600 per year, according to the low or high scenario respectively. It was also forecast that NOx emissions into the atmosphere from petroleum activities in the area would make a marginal contribution to the total load, and would, overall, not have a negative impact on the environment. The report also confirmed that increased petroleum activity could contribute to higher emissions of methane and soot particles (black carbon). The total emissions of black carbon from increased petroleum activity in the Barents area were modest compared to global emissions, but the warming effect of the emissions per gramme could be significant because of its northern location. 29.     The impact assessment report did not make any distinction between emissions stemming from the combustion of petroleum in Norway and combustion abroad. 30.     The impact assessment report was out for public consultation between October 2012 and January 2013. Responses were received from fifty stakeholders. 2012-2013 Orientation paper 31 .     The impact assessment report, the responses to the public consultation and the Ministry’s reaction were all published in the 2012 ‑ 2013 orientation paper entitled “New Opportunities for Northern Norway” issued by the Ministry on 26 April 2013 (Meld St. 36 (2012-2013)). The paper was submitted to the Parliament prior to its decision to open the south-east Barents Sea for petroleum activities. The orientation paper was focused mainly on the assessment of petroleum resources, production forecasts, potential profits, social impact, emergency preparedness and the effects on the environment, namely, fauna and ecosystems. Where it discussed various air pollutants, some of which had a warming effect, the orientation paper repeated the findings of the impact assessment report (see paragraph 14 above). It further discussed climate policy as a way to stimulate the demand for gas, given that replacing coal with gas was an effective means of reducing CO 2 emissions (see paragraph 35 below). 32 .     The orientation paper began with a note that the increasing global need for more and cleaner energy, namely oil and gas – as opposed to coal, and the emphasis on energy security meant that the outlook for Norway’s oil and gas exports was good. Norway had always been a stable and reliable supplier of oil and gas. The petroleum industry was Norway’s largest industry and to achieve long-term profitable production from oil and gas resources its activity had to be maintained at a steady level. From 2020, the importance of resources yet to be discovered would gradually increase and would dominate the industry. A necessary condition for the further development of petroleum activities was that potentially profitable discoveries were made. To facilitate profitable production in the future, there was a need to open up new areas for oil and gas exploration. 33.     The Ministry further observed that production on the Norwegian shelf was lower than it had been a few years prior. The total production of oil and gas had been gradually decreasing since 2004. In 2012, Norway produced 15% less than in 2004, when total production was at its highest. The latest projections indicated a slight increase in output in the years ahead, but without a return to the historical peak level. 34.     On the basis of a geological study conducted by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, the recoverable resources in the south-eastern Barents Sea were estimated at 300 million Norwegian krone (NOK) or approximately 25   million euros (EUR), mainly from gas. There was considerable uncertainty about the estimates for oil and gas in unopened areas. Although geological mapping provided important information, exploration wells would have to be drilled to be certain of the reserves of oil and gas. 35 .     Most forecasts indicated that oil prices would remain at levels that would make it profitable to explore and develop the oil resources remaining on the NCS and bring them into production, provided that costs were kept under control. Future demand and prices were sensitive to many elements, including global economic developments and climate policy. With the increasing globalisation of gas markets, gas would also eventually be able to reach new countries and new markets. Climate policy could provide an additional stimulus to the demand for gas, as replacing coal with gas was an effective way of reducing CO 2 emissions. Norwegian gas would help meet the European demand for gas and was expected to be an attractive and valued energy source for many decades to come. That meant that there would be a basis for the profitable exploration, development and production of the gas resources on the NCS. 36.     It was also noted that it generally took a long time, in the region of ten to fifteen years, to start production in new areas. 37 .     The orientation paper also reported claims about the environmental impact of the activity that had been made during the public consultation. It had been claimed that the knowledge base regarding several aspects of the proposed programme, including its climate effects, was too weak for the authorities to be able to take a position on whether or not to open new areas for petroleum activities. In the Ministry’s view, however, the knowledge base was sufficient for decisions to be taken on the opening of the area, while factors such as climate effects, ecological relationships and ocean acidification could be followed up through the work on the management plans. The orientation paper concluded that the projected petroleum activities would have little negative environmental impact and that the risk of acute spills was low. 38.     On 26 April 2013 the Ministry’s recommendation to open the south ‑ eastern Barents Sea for petroleum activities was approved by the Government. The 23 rd licensing round 39 .     On 10 June 2016 the Ministry awarded ten licences for petroleum gas production on the NCS under section 3-3 of the Petroleum Act (see paragraph   103 below). Seven of those production licences (fourteen blocks) concerned “mature” areas in the south Barents Sea, while three licences (twenty-six blocks) concerned “non-mature” areas in the south-east Barents Sea. The recipients of the licences were thirteen private companies. 40.     By December 2020, seven exploration wells had been drilled on the blocks from the 23 rd licensing round - three in the south Barents Sea and four in the south-east Barents Sea. 41.     Ultimately, all those licences were returned and relinquished by the companies (see paragraph 107 below), as no potentially profitable gas discoveries were made. 42 .     The applicants’ submissions and publicly available information confirmed that on 11 March 2022 Norway re-licensed the acreage of the south Barents Sea partly covered by one of the disputed production licences (no.   855) under the so-called APA system for mature areas (see paragraph 89 below), after the original licence for that area had been relinquished. Prior to its relinquishment, licence no. 855 had covered the drilling of two wells: Gemini Nord, which revealed uncommercial gas and minor oil deposits, and Sputnik, which struck an oil column with preliminary recoverable volumes of 20-65 million barrels. Although Sputnik was a valid discovery, both wells were ultimately considered to hold gas which was not commercially valuable, so the wells had limited economic potential. A new production licence, no.   1170, was then issued and is valid until 11 March 2030. It has allowed the discovery of two significant gas deposits (Hassel and Ferdinand Nord) adjacent to and geologically part of Wisting, the largest undeveloped oil discovery on the NCS, with estimated volumes of around 440 million barrels of oil equivalents. The two wells were plugged and abandoned after evaluation, with the discovery itself remaining valid and open to development through either new appraisal wells or tieback to other infrastructure, such as Wisting. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE 2016 DECISION ON the 23 rd LICENSING ROUND 43 .     On 18 October 2016 the two applicant organisations sought a judicial review of the validity of the decision of 10   June   2016 to grant the production licences issued in the 23 rd licensing round (see paragraph 39 above). Their action was brought pursuant to the Act relating to mediation and procedure in civil disputes (“the Disputes Act”: see paragraph 116 below). 44 .     The organisations argued, among other contentions, that the decision was in breach of Article 112 of the Constitution on the right to a healthy environment (see paragraph 91 below). The organisations also argued that the decision to grant the licences for petroleum activities in the south-east Barents Sea was invalid because of various procedural errors. 45.     On 4 January 2018 the Oslo City Court held that the disputed decision was valid. 46 .     The two applicant organisations appealed against that judgment to the Borgarting Court of Appeal. They maintained that the decision of 10 June 2016 was invalid on the grounds originally stated (see paragraph 44 above). They also gave new and alternative grounds for the invalidity of the 2016 licensing decision, namely that it was in violation of Articles 93 (right to life) and 102 of the Constitution (right to respect for private life, see paragraph 91 below) and Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, respectively. 47.     On 23 January 2020 the Borgarting Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 48.     The two applicant organisations appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court. 49 .     The applicant organisations raised a series of arguments as described below (see paragraphs 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 68, 72, 79, 80 and 82 below). A   reservation was made in the appeal to, additionally, invoke Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention and the corresponding Articles 93 and 102 of the Constitution. Related arguments were pursued at the subsequent hearing. 50.     By the time of the proceedings in the Supreme Court, all but one of the production licences granted in the 23rd licensing round had been returned by the licensees, and the Supreme Court was informed that the operator with the one remaining licence, in the south-east Barents Sea, had applied to return 62% of the area covered by its licence. 51 .     On 22 December 2020 the Supreme Court, sitting in a plenary formation of fifteen judges, dismissed the appeal (HR-2020-2472-P). The judgment was given by Justice Høgetveit Berg. 52 .     It its judgment, the Supreme Court made a series of observations about climate change, relying on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) and on the Climate Risk Commission’s 2018 report “Climate risk and the Norwegian economy”. 53 .     In particular, the Supreme Court acknowledged that climate change was mostly man-made and reiterated that global temperatures would have risen by 1.5 o C by around 2040 and the increase would reach 3-4 o C towards the end of the century unless adjustments were made to climate policies around the world. It also observed that the effects of global warming would be irreversible and the GHG emissions that had already occurred would affect the climate for centuries to come. It also said: “52. The global risk picture with a temperature rise of 2 o C includes extreme heat, draught, sea level rise, ocean acidification, floods and extreme weather. The climate changes will alter the conditions of life for many species and ecosystems. Hundreds of millions of people will be exposed to serious effects, and some ecosystems and cultures are particularly vulnerable. The most exposed groups are the poor, indigenous peoples and local communities depending on agriculture and small-scale fishing along the coast. For the Arctic, the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees of global warming will be immense.” 54 .     The Supreme Court also acknowledged that Norway was affected by global warming, with large parts of the country already experiencing warmer summers, milder winters, more rain, shrinking glaciers and higher sea levels, and with predictions of a further increase in the average temperature in Norway, especially in the country’s Arctic regions, and of more drought, higher treelines (because of a shift in vegetation zones, with trees replacing shrublands or tundra), an increased forest fire hazard, further shrinking of the glaciers, warming and acidification of the oceans, rising sea levels, and greater storm surges. 55 .     The Supreme Court then made the following observations regarding Norway’s commitments under the Paris Agreement: “58. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in Article 2 (2) implies that affluent countries, such as Norway, carry a larger responsibility. According to Article 3, cf. Article 4, each party is to undertake and communicate “ambitious efforts”, which in aggregate will “represent a progression over time”. In other words, it is not a matter of even distribution; all parties are to do their best. 59. In 2015, Norway communicated to the UN an obligation to reduce emissions by at least 40 percent from 1990 ... Norway communicated in February 2020 an increased goal of 50 percent, with a cap of 55 percent ... 60. Through the EEA Agreement, Norway participates in the EU Emissions Trading System. In June 2019, the Storting consented to the incorporation of legislative acts for reaching emissions goal for 2030 jointly with the EU into EEA Agreement ...” 56 .     Subsequently, the Supreme Court made the following observations in respect of the applicant organisations’ claim that the decision regarding the 23 rd licensing round was in breach of Article 112 of the Constitution on the right to a healthy environment, and in respect of their detailed arguments. 57 .     Firstly, the Supreme Court addressed the arguments that Article 112 of the Constitution safeguarded the rights of individuals against unacceptable harm to the environment and could be relied on in court, and that no decisive weight should be attached to the Parliament’s general position on climate and petroleum matters as Article 112 of the Constitution was intended to give the court a right of review. 58.     The Supreme Court thus held that Article 112 of the Constitution conferred rights on individuals that could be asserted in court when there was no legislation relating to