European Court says Norway must fully account for oil and gas emissions
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Norway must fully account for emissions from oil and gas projects, including downstream emissions. Experts call it a “game changer” and may make it much more difficult for oil and gas projects to move forward in Europe.
In late October, a European court quietly issued a ruling that may put up significant obstacles to new oil and gas projects on the continent.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on October 28th that Norway must complete a full environmental impact assessment (EIA) before approving new oil and gas projects. Experts and environmental organisations hailed the decision as a significant milestone in the world of climate litigation and human rights.
The case was brought by Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth Norway against the state of Norway over the approval of offshore oil licenses in 2016. They argued that Norway violated their human rights by green-lighting fossil fuel projects in the Barents Sea that would worsen the climate crisis. The legal back-and-forth had stretched on for nearly a decade.
The European Court of Human Rights technically ruled in favour of Norway, deciding that the plaintiffs’ rights had not been violated because the licenses awarded had not proceeded to the production phase. But the environmental groups saw victory in the Court’s decision that stated Norway must conduct an EIA before the projects — and, therefore, all future projects — can move forward.
Moreover, the decision also says that the state must fully assess downstream emissions – the emissions that occur when consumers burn petroleum products, even those exported abroad. Energy executives have long argued that these “Scope 3” emissions should not be considered as part of the industry’s responsibility.
“This is a game-changer: once downstream emissions are properly counted, it becomes evident that new fossil fuel projects are fundamentally incompatible with national and international climate commitments,” Sébastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), told Gas Outlook. “The Court has effectively reaffirmed that governments can no longer ignore the full climate impact of what they approve.”
Officially, the ruling makes a procedural argument. Norway cannot cut corners when approving new oil and gas projects; it must fully account for the environmental impacts. In theory, once that box is checked, the decision does not technically forbid Norway from approving new projects.
But in practice, the burden for approval is now significantly higher, experts say.
“While the ruling is framed in procedural terms, its implications are deeply substantive: any honest, science-based assessment will show that new fossil fuel production cannot be squared with those human rights obligations,” Duyck said. “In practice, it sets the stage for the denial of future production licences given their incompatibility with the duty to prevent human rights harms associated with higher increase of temperatures.”
In response to questions from Gas Outlook, the Norwegian Minister of Energy, Terje Aasland, said: “It is positive that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in Norway’s favor in this case. The Court clearly establishes that we are not violating human rights, and that climate considerations are being safeguarded in a solid and democratic manner through the extensive processes from licensing to potential production.”
But experts believe that appears to be a rather narrow interpretation of the outcome. In fact, the decision requiring an EIA, including Scope 3 emissions, builds on other recent legal precedents.
A 2024 decision by the UK Supreme Court also found that projects must undergo an EIA. A separate European court issued an advisory opinion earlier this year stating that downstream (Scope 3) emissions are required to be assessed. And in July, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that deemed the 1.5-degree Celsius warming target to be legally binding, imposing obligations on states to avoid climate harms.
“The effect of all these decisions is that fossil fuel producers must come clean about the full climate impacts of the fuels they produce, in order to mitigate climate litigation risk,” Fergus Green, an associate professor at University College London, told Gas Outlook. “This decision is the latest in a string of domestic and international legal rulings that mean new fossil fuel production projects will be subject to much greater legal and political scrutiny on climate grounds than ever before.”
Green pointed to the Rosebank oil project in the North Sea, which saw its permit revoked by a Scottish Court on the grounds that the UK government did not adequately consider the project’s Scope 3 emissions.
The impact of the latest decision could reverberate across the continent, as it lays out a legal interpretation for the European Convention of Human Rights, which has 46 member states. In short, it will now be much more difficult for new oil and gas projects to receive approval in Europe.
Duyck added that the European Court of Human Rights is “a very influential Court and its interpretation of legal norms informs judicial decision-making beyond the continent.”
Other experts also saw the decision as momentous.
The decision is “a defining moment for procedural climate justice,” wrote Dr. Maria Antonia Tigre, the director of global climate change litigation at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for climate change law. “The decision establishes, for the first time, a human-rights standard for climate-related due diligence — turning procedural safeguards into enforceable obligations.”
(Writing by Nick Cunningham; editing by Sophie Davies)