The European Court of Human Rights has issued its long-awaited judgement in the Greenpeace Nordic and Others vs Norway application and reminded states of their obligations to uphold the procedural aspects of their climate change obligations.
The judgement by the Strasbourg Court exists among a surge in climate change cases being litigated before international and domestic courts. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) revealed in its 2025 Global Climate Litigation Report that 3,099 climate-based cases are presently being considered by judiciaries worldwide across 55 countries.
So, following this latest judgement, what do states need to do now before approving fossil fuel projects?
Greenpeace Nordic alongside youth environmental association Nature and Youth and six individual applicants contended that Norway’s approval of oil exploration licenses in the southeastern Barents Sea breached their right to life and right to respect their private and family lives when considering their exposure to the ongoing effects of climate change. Exposure (by the individual applicant’s submission) encompassed psychological harm inclusive of significant emotional distress associated with climate anxiety and grief, whilst the organisations contended harm arose in the more traditional sense (e.g. displacement, water and food insecurity and subsequent malnutrition, weather-related mortality) both domestically and transcending state borders.
What this presents is perhaps a more open-door policy for international courts to consider environmental claims that may fail at a domestic level.
The court considered what steps Norway took to comply with its procedural obligations under the Convention, and scrutinised its internal processes, plans and framework for petroleum activities in Norway. Critically, the court recognised that Norway’s liability would turn on the temporal aspect of its obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment (EIA); when exactly did Norway state that it would undertake an EIA? The applicants argued that under Norway’s three stage framework, its failure to conduct an EIA at the point of licence approval (Stage 1) and order for deferral instead of the EIA to stage 3 of the process (the final of the stages) amounted to a breach of international law by narrowing the points of review to be included in the EIA give its late state assessment, rendering it near-defunct.
The court held in favour of Norway, dismissing the applicant’s submission that their right to life had been violated. The deferral of an EIA was deemed an act that would not undermine the effectiveness of the legal framework for oil production and exploration exercises. Rather, the applicants would have the opportunity to challenge the authorisation of any project proceeding through the staged process once the EIA had been released to the public. The court did however reiterate that an EIA must be based on recent, relevant, and sufficient information to be compliant with a State’s international obligations, while not going in depth in the judgement about what this entails.
Precedent from other international courts and tribunals shows that this is largely circumstance specific, dependent on the scope and type of harm emanating from the proposed state activity. The ICJ has reiterated this point in both the Pulp Mills decision and in its most recent Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. Accordingly, the onus is on the State to determine the contents of an EIA. Whilst this certainly respects the notion of non-interference in domestic state affairs amongst rules of state independence and sovereignty, the court has not shied away from warning states that rigour must be evident in its EIA to address serious risks arising from projects that could affect citizen rights as a consequence of environmental pollution, degradation or other non-categorical harm that nonetheless emerges.
Of the other international litigation, a case against Austria is ongoing, and a further case against Norway is before the European Court for purported violations of the Convention as a consequence of the States’ alleged failure to mitigate or protect their citizens from the effects of climate change. Of interest is the application by Mr Müllner, an Austrian national suffering from multiple sclerosis who claims his symptoms have worsened from the rise of external temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and that this interferes primarily with his right to life.
Not included in the UNEP list is possibly the first challenge to the UK’s climate change adaptation plan, submitted by two applicants who allege property damage, distress, and exacerbated health problems as a consequence of the UK’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Convention in implementing effective measures to mitigate against the risks of climate change. If accepted by the court, it will be another instance in which state environmental policy is subject to international review.
While some countries are upholding the position that matters of environmental policy should not be subject to judicial determination, the judgement by the Strasbourg court demonstrates that environmental policy and internal state action can be subject to judicial enquiry depending on the branch of international environmental law that heads the claim. What this presents is perhaps a more open-door policy for international courts to consider environmental claims that may fail at a domestic level, and in reality, puts governments on notice that their environmental policies may soon have attention in an international forum.
