The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR” or “the Court”) has clarified the scope of States’ procedural duties under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). Effective, science-based, and participatory environmental impact assessments (“EIAs”) are required before authorising activities with significant climate impact. In the context of petroleum production, the EIA must, at a minimum, quantify the anticipated greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, including those arising from combustion both domestically and abroad.

Background

Norway’s offshore petroleum activities currently take place on the Norwegian continental shelf. In 2013, the Norwegian Parliament opened the south-east Barents Sea for petroleum exploration, following a strategic impact assessment. This assessment included public consultations and scientific studies but did not distinguish between emissions from domestic and exported combustion, nor did it quantify downstream/exported emissions associated with the opening of the area. The relevant Ministry subsequently awarded ten petroleum production licences on 10 June 2016.

Two NGOs, Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth Norway, unsuccessfully challenged certain processes leading up to the award of the licences in the domestic courts. In 2021, the two NGOs and six individuals (current and former members of the latter organisation) applied to the ECtHR for relief in respect of alleged violations of Articles 2, 8, and 14 of the Convention. This post focuses on the ECtHR’s rulings under Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life). ¹

Procedural obligations under Article 8 ECHR

The ECtHR reiterated that States have obligations under Article 8 to ensure effective protection of those within their jurisdiction from serious adverse effects caused by climate change. Accordingly, States are required to adopt and effectively implement regulations and measures capable of mitigating the effects of climate change. The Court also restated that States enjoy a “wide margin of appreciation” in determining how to comply with their climate obligations, including operational choices and the adoption of policies to meet internationally agreed targets and commitments. These findings are consistent with the ECtHR’s ruling in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, which we discussed in a previous blog post.

However, in this case, which concerned whether Norway’s decision-making processes violated Article 8, the Court observed that a "material" consideration in determining whether a State had remained within its margin of appreciation in the context of environmental and climate matters, was whether the appropriate procedural safeguard was in place. In the ECtHR’s view, an EIA must be conducted before authorising any potentially dangerous activity that may adversely affect individuals’ rights to effective protection by the State from serious consequences of climate change on their life, health, well-being, and quality of life. Such an EIA must be:

• adequate, timely, and comprehensive;
• conducted in good faith; and
• based on the best available science.

Further, in the context of petroleum production projects, the Court specified that:

• any EIA must, at a minimum, quantify the GHG emissions anticipated to be produced (including combustion emissions both within the country and abroad); and
• public authorities must: (a) assess whether the project is compatible with their climate change obligations; and (b) conduct an informed public consultation while options remain open and pollution can still be prevented.

The Court found that Norway had not violated its Article 8 obligations in this case. Norway’s petroleum permission procedures involve a three-stage process: opening the area, licensing, and the plan for development and operation (“PDO”) phase. A strategic impact assessment is required at the first stage, but a full EIA is not required until the PDO phase. The ECtHR considered whether there were any structural problems with this framework capable of adversely affecting the implementation of the State’s legal framework. It held that Norway adheres to the international legal framework on climate change, that Norway’s petroleum activities are highly regulated, and that the PDO stage would involve a comprehensive assessment of the effects of anticipated petroleum production on climate change. Accordingly, while the ECtHR acknowledged that the Norway’s decision-making processes were not fully comprehensive, there were no structural issues indicating that Norway’s legal framework was not being implemented effectively. There was no indication that an EIA assessment deferred to a later stage in the process was inherently insufficient to support the guarantees that Norway had committed to under Article 8.

Implications

Convergence regarding States’ Procedural Obligations in the Climate Context

While the Court found no violation by Norway in its petroleum licensing process, it set important standards for future cases, articulating for the first time that, to meet their Article 8 obligations, States must carry out appropriate EIAs where projects have significant climate impact.

This aligns with recent decisions by international human rights bodies recognising the negative impact of anthropogenic climate change on internationally recognised human rights (e.g., the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on climate emergency and human rights), as well as other significant opinions of international tribunals regarding State obligations and the importance and content of EIAs in the climate context (e.g., the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’s 2024 Advisory Opinion on climate change and international law, and most recently the ICJ’s 2025 Advisory Opinion on climate change) (discussed here).

The ECtHR also referred to the EFTA Court’s advisory opinion of 21 May 2025 (the "EFTA Court Opinion"), which considered the EU EIA Directive in the context of climate change, stipulating that an EIA must set out in a comprehensive manner, among other things, any indirect significant effects of a project.  This means that the climate effects from combustion of fossil fuels sold to third parties (effectively, Scope 3 emissions of the project) must be taken into account.  While non-binding, the EFTA Court Opinion is likely to be persuasive when similar questions come before the Court of Justice of the EU as well as courts of EEA member States.  Moreover, the ECtHR’s decision referred in detail to the UK Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council [2024] UKSC 20, a landmark judgment followed in the subsequent Rosebank decision, where the Supreme Court held that downstream Scope 3 emissions had to be considered in the EIA for an oil extraction project (discussed here). In both the EFTA Court Opinion and Finch, authorities' key arguments around: (1) uncertainty about subsequent use of the fuels, and (2) claims that failing to abstract in one location would lead to additional extraction elsewhere (so-called displacement), were dismissed.

Increasing NGO-led climate change litigation against States?

It is worth noting that only the NGO applicants' claims were admitted for consideration by the ECtHR. The two NGOs applicants had satisfied the three criteria for associations to establish locus standi in the 2024 ECtHR case of KlimaSeniorinnen.² None of the individual applicants were found to have the necessary 'victim' status required under article 34 of the Convention since the court found no evidence of either: (1) a high-intensity exposure to the adverse effects of climate change; or (2) a pressing need for individual protection.

This finding is consistent with the decision KlimaSeniorinnen and several recent decisions of the ECtHR since KlimaSeniorinnen – demonstrating that the threshold for fulling these criteria is especially high in climate cases.³  KlimaSeniorinnen clarified that associations do not also need to prove that those they represent separately fulfil the victim status, suggesting that future cases may be brought by NGOs rather than individuals.  

Impact on Corporates

The ECtHR’s decision suggests that increasing scrutiny is being placed not just on States’ climate-related obligations, but also on the manner in which States seek to meet these obligations.

The EFTA Opinion and Finch had already demonstrated a direction of travel towards requiring indirect (scope 3) emissions to be taken into account in project EIA / EIA decisions. The ECtHR's decision is likely to speed up this process. To the extent that States are required to change their laws or administrative policy to ensure that EIAs / EIA decisions cover these extended effects, this could have a significant impact on corporate entities within industries associated with high levels of GHG emissions (particularly in the oil and gas sector).

For example, it might make it more difficult for such entities to obtain the requisite licences from States and relevant national authorities, who may become increasingly influenced by NGO pressure and public opinion, and who may find it challenging to balance the interests of avoiding environmental impacts with energy security.

Further, it could result in significant uncertainty as to how to carry out such analysis given there is still no settled methodology for determining downstream emissions, and corresponding increases in compliance costs for developers in carrying out more comprehensive environmental impact analysis.

¹ _{The ECtHR did not consider it necessary to consider the complaints made under Article 2 ECHR (Right to Life), since the complaints mirrored the alleged violations of Article 8, ECHR. Allegations that Norway had violated Article 14 (related to discrimination) in conjunction with Article 2 and 8, ECHR were held to be inadmissible.}

² _{In summary; (1) lawful establishment in the jurisdiction concerned or standing there; (2) evidence of a dedicated purposes in the defence of human rights of its those it represents including collective action for the protection of those rights against threats arising from climate change; and (3) demonstrably genuinely qualified and representative to act on behalf of members or other affected individuals within the jurisdiction who are subject to specific threats or adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health or well-being as protected under the Convention.}

³ _{De Conto v. Italy and 32 Others (dec.), no. 14620/21, § 16, 7 May 2025 [Committee], and Uricchio v. Italy and 31 Others (dec.), no. 14615/21, § 16, 7 May 2025, Engels and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 46906/22, § 11, 1 July 2025 [Committee]. Each of these cases was commenced prior to the decision in KlimaSeniorinnen.}