On October 28, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded a historic 9-year climate litigation case against the Norwegian government. The Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway decision clarified states' obligations to assess climate impacts before approving new fossil fuel projects and redefined the procedural dimension of environmental rights.

This decision demonstrates the Nordic legal system's approach to environmental protection and the scope of application of Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution. The ECtHR ruled that Norway did not violate human rights, but emphasized that comprehensive environmental impact assessments must be conducted in all future fossil fuel projects.

This article examines the background of the 9-year litigation process, the content of Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, Norwegian court decisions, and the ECtHR's reasoning.

1. Background: The Barents Sea and the 23rd Licensing Round

A. Norway's Arctic Oil Policy

In June 2016, the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy granted 10 oil and gas exploration licenses in the southeastern Barents Sea. These licenses were part of the "23rd licensing round."

This decision marked an important turning point in Norwegian history because:

First, new areas opened for the first time in 20 years: The Norwegian government opened certain areas of the Barents Sea to oil exploration for the first time after keeping them closed for 20 years.

Second, these are the northernmost licenses in the Arctic: The licenses represent the northernmost oil exploration permits ever granted in Norwegian history. This region has extremely sensitive ecosystems and is directly affected by climate change.

Third, 13 companies received licenses: Norway's state-owned oil company Equinor (formerly Statoil), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Lukoil, and other international companies shared the 10 licenses.

The licenses grant companies exploration rights, meaning authority to conduct seismic research and drill boreholes. However, licenses do not automatically grant oil production rights. A separate permit (Plan for Development and Operation - PDO) is required for production.

B. Just Days Before Signing the Paris Agreement

A critical point: The Norwegian government made the 23rd licensing round decision just days before signing the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement was adopted on December 12, 2015, and signed by 196 countries. The agreement aims to keep global warming below 2°C, preferably below 1.5°C.

While Norway signed the Paris Agreement, it simultaneously opened new oil exploration areas in the Arctic. This contradiction was harshly criticized by environmental organizations.

C. Plaintiffs' Claims

On October 18, 2016, Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom (Young Friends of the Earth Norway) filed suit against the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.

Plaintiffs claimed the 23rd licensing round decision was unlawful for the following reasons:

1. Violation of Norwegian Constitution Article 112: Article 112 of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to a healthy environment and the state must protect this right. Plaintiffs argued Arctic oil exploration violates this right.

2. Inconsistency with Paris Agreement: Norway's approval of new fossil fuel projects contradicts Paris Agreement goals.

3. "Downstream emissions" not assessed: The Norwegian government assessed only direct emissions from oil exploration but did not account for emissions from burning extracted oil (downstream emissions).

Later, the Grandparents' Climate Campaign and Friends of the Earth Norway also joined as interveners.

2. Norwegian Constitution Article 112: Environmental Right

A. Text of Article 112

The Norwegian Constitution (Grunnloven) was adopted in 1814 and is one of the world's oldest written constitutions. In a 2014 amendment, environmental rights were added to the Constitution.

Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution states:

"Every person has the right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained. Natural resources shall be managed on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations which will safeguard this right for future generations as well.
Citizens are entitled to information on the state of the natural environment and on the effects of any encroachment on nature that is planned or carried out. The authorities of the state shall take measures for the implementation of these principles."

Important elements of Article 112:

1. Individual right: Environmental right belongs to every individual. This is not just state policy but a constitutional right.

2. Future generations: The article explicitly recognizes the environmental rights of future generations. This is a constitutional expression of the principle of intergenerational equity.

3. State obligation: The state is obligated to take active measures to protect environmental rights.

4. Right to information: Citizens have the right to be informed on environmental matters.

B. History and Purpose of Article 112

Article 112 was added as part of constitutional reform in 2014. However, environmental protection has a long history in Norwegian law.

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), both adopted in 1992, shaped Norway's environmental policies.

The purpose of Article 112:

1. Place environmental rights under constitutional protection: Making environmental rights constitutional rather than statutory provides stronger protection.

2. Clarify state responsibility: The state cannot remain passive on environmental protection; it must take active measures.

3. Protect future generations: The impact of today's decisions on future generations must be considered.

3. Process in Norwegian Courts (2016-2020)

A. Oslo District Court - January 4, 2018

Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom's case was heard in Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) in November 2017.

Court's decision:

The court ruled in favor of the Norwegian government. The court made the following findings:

1. Article 112 is a rights provision: The court acknowledged that Article 112 creates an actual right, not just a policy statement. This was a partial victory for plaintiffs.

2. However, government fulfilled its obligations: The court found the government conducted necessary environmental assessments before making the licensing decision.

3. No need to assess "downstream emissions": The court's most controversial decision. The court stated:

"CO2 emissions from oil and gas exported from Norway being burned abroad are not relevant for assessing whether Article 112 has been violated."

This decision was harshly criticized by plaintiffs. Emissions from burning oil constitute the vast majority of total emissions. Not assessing these emissions means incomplete calculation of climate impacts.

B. Borgarting Court of Appeals - January 22, 2020

Plaintiffs appealed the Oslo District Court decision to Borgarting Court of Appeals (Borgarting lagmannsrett).

Court's decision:

The appeals court ruled in favor of the Norwegian government. However, it made an important change:

1. Article 112 covers exported oil emissions: Unlike Oslo District Court, the appeals court stated Article 112 covers "downstream emissions."

2. However, emissions cannot be assessed in isolation: The court stated emissions from oil licenses must be assessed in the context of Norway's overall climate policy.

3. Licenses are lawful: After all these assessments, the court ruled the licenses do not violate Article 112.

C. Norwegian Supreme Court - December 22, 2020

Plaintiffs appealed the Borgarting Court of Appeals decision to the Norwegian Supreme Court (Høyesterett).

The Supreme Court heard the case in plenary, meaning all justices reviewed the case.

Court's decision (11-4):

The Norwegian Supreme Court ruled 11-4 in favor of the Norwegian government.

Majority opinion:

1. Future emissions are too uncertain: The majority stated future emissions from oil exploration licenses are too uncertain to justify canceling the licenses at this stage.

2. However, assessment must be made at production stage: The court made this important finding:

"Considerable investments in exploration licenses do not give companies the right to extract found fossil fuels. Authorities have the 'right and duty' to refuse production licenses (PDO) if granting them would violate the environmental right in Article 112 of the Constitution."

This statement would play an important role in future litigation.

3. State has wide margin of appreciation: The court found the state has wide discretion in environmental policy and found no gross negligence in the government's approach.

Dissenting opinion (4 justices):

Four justices dissented, believing Article 112 was violated. Dissenting justices made the following findings:

1. Future emissions are sufficiently predictable: The purpose of exploration licenses is to find and produce oil. Therefore, future emissions are predictable.

2. State obligation was neglected: The state is obligated under Article 112 to assess future emissions and this obligation was not fulfilled.

The Norwegian Supreme Court decision was announced on December 22, 2020. This decision meant all domestic judicial remedies in Norway were exhausted.

4. Application to the European Court of Human Rights (2021)

A. Content of Application

In June 2021, Greenpeace Nordic, Natur og Ungdom, and 6 young activists applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Individual applicants:

Ingrid Skjoldvær (age 27)

Gaute Eiterjord (age 25) - Former president of Natur og Ungdom

Ella Marie Hætta Isaksen (age 23) - Sami people, fishing culture

Mia Cathryn Chamberlain (age 22)

Lasse Eriksen Bjørn (age 24) - Sea Sami culture

Gina Gylver (age 20)

Applicants claimed Norway's 23rd licensing round decision violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

1. Violation of ECHR Article 2 (Right to life): Climate change threatens lives. Norway's approval of new oil projects increases this threat.

2. Violation of ECHR Article 8 (Right to private and family life): Climate change negatively affects private and family life.

3. Violation of ECHR Article 13 (Right to effective remedy): Norwegian courts did not effectively protect applicants' rights.

4. Violation of ECHR Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination): Climate change impacts are more severe for young generations and indigenous peoples (Sami).

B. Amicus Curiae

During the ECtHR process, many organizations submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs:

UN Special Rapporteurs: Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Environment David Boyd and Special Rapporteur on Toxic Substances and Human Rights

ClientEarth (Environmental law organization)

Norwegian Grandparents' Climate Campaign

European Network of National Human Rights Institutions

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

These briefs supported applicants' arguments.

5. European Court of Human Rights Decision - October 28, 2025

A. Content of Decision

The European Court of Human Rights issued its decision in Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway on October 28, 2025.

Decision Information:

• Application No.: 34068/21
• Decision Date: October 28, 2025
• Chamber: Fourth Section
• Decision: UNANIMOUSLY
• Result: NO VIOLATION

Court's basic finding:

The ECtHR ruled Norway did not violate ECHR Article 8. However, this decision comes with important conditions.

B. Scope of Decision

At the outset, the ECtHR made this important finding:

"This case concerns an allegedly flawed decision-making process in one particular licensing round."

The Court limited the case's scope to the decision-making process of the 23rd licensing round. The Court did not examine Norway's general climate policy or decision not to abandon oil production.

This disappointed applicants because they requested assessment of Norway's general fossil fuel policy. However, the ECtHR placed this issue outside the case's scope.

C. Article 2 (Right to Life) - Inadmissibility

The ECtHR ruled the application under Article 2 (right to life) inadmissible.

Reasoning:

1. "Real and immediate risk" requirement not met: For Article 2 to apply, there must be a "real and immediate risk" to applicants' lives.

The Court acknowledged climate change poses a serious threat. However, it stated no direct link could be established between the 23rd licensing round exploration licenses and applicants' lives.

2. Climate change is a global problem: The Court stated:

"The effects of climate change occur globally and result from many sources. It is not possible to characterize a single licensing round as a real and immediate risk to specific individuals' lives."

This reasoning demonstrates the difficulty of applying Article 2 in climate cases.

D. Article 8 (Right to Private and Family Life) - Admissibility

The ECtHR found part of the application under Article 8 admissible.

Individual applicants (6 young people): The ECtHR ruled the 6 young applicants did not have "victim" status.

Reasoning:

"The individual applicants have not demonstrated a sufficiently serious or individualized impact of climate change on their lives, health, or well-being."

Citing KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024), the Court stated there was no "high-intensity exposure."

Organizations (Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom): The ECtHR found both organizations' applications admissible.

The Court recognized environmental organizations have standing to bring environmental cases.

E. Article 8 - Merits Assessment

The ECtHR examined Article 8 on the merits and focused on procedural obligations.

ECtHR's key findings:

1. States have procedural obligations:

Article 8 requires not only protection from environmental harm but also that decision-making processes meet certain standards.

The Court stated:

"Article 8 imposes procedural obligations on states when making environmental decisions. These obligations require decisions to be transparent, informed, and open to the public."

2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) must be comprehensive:

The ECtHR found the EIA Norway conducted before the 23rd licensing round decision incomplete.

Deficiencies identified by the Court:

a. "Downstream emissions" (combustion emissions) not assessed: Norway assessed emissions during oil extraction and transport but did not account for emissions from burning the oil.

b. Compatibility with climate obligations not assessed: Norway did not assess whether new oil projects are compatible with the Paris Agreement and national climate targets.

c. Public participation insufficient: Public information and participation in the decision-making process were inadequate.

3. However, deficiencies can be remedied at later stage:

This is the ECtHR's most important finding. The Court emphasized the 23rd licensing round granted exploration licenses but production permits (PDO) had not yet been issued.

The Court stated:

"The Norwegian Supreme Court held that authorities have the 'right and duty' under Article 112 of the Constitution to refuse PDO (production permits) if climate and environmental considerations so require. This means deficiencies can be remedied at a later stage."

The Court considered Norway's commitments:

• Climate impacts and combustion emissions will be assessed in all new PDO decisions
• Public consultation will be conducted
• EFTA Court's (2025) advisory opinion will be considered

These commitments were instrumental in the ECtHR concluding no violation occurred.

F. Comparison with KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland

In Greenpeace Nordic, the ECtHR frequently cited KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024).

KlimaSeniorinnen decision (April 9, 2024):

In this case, a group of elderly Swiss women sued the Swiss government. The ECtHR ruled Switzerland violated Article 8.

What's the difference?

KlimaSeniorinnen: Switzerland's general climate policy was inadequate. The state failed to take effective climate action.

Greenpeace Nordic: Procedural deficiencies in a single licensing round in Norway were assessed. However, these deficiencies can be remedied at a later stage.

The ECtHR emphasized substantive obligations in KlimaSeniorinnen but procedural obligations in Greenpeace Nordic.

G. EFTA Court Advisory Opinion (2025)

The ECtHR decision also referenced the EFTA Court's 2025 advisory opinion.

What is EFTA Court?

EFTA (European Free Trade Association) is the judicial body for countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) that are not EU members but are part of the European Economic Area (EEA).

EFTA Court's advisory opinion:

In May 2025, the EFTA Court issued an advisory opinion on interpretation of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA Directive - 2011/92/EU).

Court's findings:

1. Combustion emissions must be assessed: EIA must cover not only project's direct emissions but also emissions from burning exported fossil fuels.

2. Deficiencies cannot be remedied later: If the initial EIA is incomplete, remedying deficiencies at a later stage constitutes circumvention of EU law.

This decision strengthened Norway's obligation to conduct comprehensive EIA in all future PDO applications.

6. Practical Consequences of Decision

A. Consequences for Norway

The ECtHR decision requires Norway to fulfill the following obligations in all future fossil fuel projects:

1. Comprehensive EIA must be conducted: Comprehensive EIA must be conducted for every production permit (PDO) application.

2. Combustion emissions must be assessed: EIA must cover "downstream emissions" from burning extracted oil.

3. Compatibility with climate obligations must be assessed: Whether new projects are compatible with Paris Agreement and national climate targets must be assessed.

4. Public participation must be ensured: Public must be informed and consulted, decisions must be transparent.

B. Precedent for Other Countries

Greenpeace Nordic sets precedent not only for Norway but for all Council of Europe member states.

Decision's impact on other countries:

1. Standard for new fossil fuel projects: ECtHR clarified that states must conduct comprehensive climate impact assessment before approving new fossil fuel projects.

2. "Downstream emissions" must be assessed: Not only project's direct emissions but emissions from burning exported fossil fuels must be assessed.

3. Importance of procedural rights: ECtHR emphasized the importance of procedural rights in environmental decision-making.

C. Development of Climate Law

Greenpeace Nordic is an important step in global climate law development.

Comparison with other landmark decisions:

Urgenda v. Netherlands (2019): Dutch Supreme Court ordered Dutch government to increase climate targets.

KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024): ECtHR found Switzerland's general climate policy inadequate.

Greenpeace Nordic v. Norway (2025): ECtHR clarified procedural obligations.

Each decision develops a different dimension of climate law.

7. Conclusion

The Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway decision is the result of a 9-year legal struggle. The ECtHR ruled Norway did not violate human rights, but emphasized comprehensive environmental impact assessment must be conducted in all future fossil fuel projects.

While the decision disappointed applicants (Norway won), it established an important legal foundation for the future (procedural obligations clarified).

Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution demonstrates the Nordic legal system's commitment to environmental protection. The ECtHR decision revealed the international dimension of this constitutional right.

Greenpeace Nordic is an example of "winning by losing." Applicants lost the case but raised the standard for assessing all future fossil fuel projects.

References

• Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway, App. no. 34068/21 (October 28, 2025)
• Norwegian Constitution (Grunnloven) Article 112
• Oslo District Court Decision (January 4, 2018)
• Borgarting Court of Appeals Decision (January 22, 2020)
• Norwegian Supreme Court Decision (December 22, 2020)
• European Convention on Human Rights - Articles 2, 8, 13, 14
• KlimaSeniorinnen and Others v. Switzerland, App. no. 53600/20 (April 9, 2024)
• EFTA Court Advisory Opinion (May 2025)
• Urgenda v. Netherlands, Hoge Raad (December 20, 2019)
• Paris Agreement (December 12, 2015)

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.On October 28, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded a historic 9-year climate litigation case against the Norwegian government. The Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway decision clarified states' obligations to assess climate impacts before approving new fossil fuel projects and redefined the procedural dimension of environmental rights.

This decision demonstrates the Nordic legal system's approach to environmental protection and the scope of application of Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution. The ECtHR ruled that Norway did not violate human rights, but emphasized that comprehensive environmental impact assessments must be conducted in all future fossil fuel projects.

This article examines the background of the 9-year litigation process, the content of Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, Norwegian court decisions, and the ECtHR's reasoning.

1. Background: The Barents Sea and the 23rd Licensing Round

A. Norway's Arctic Oil Policy

In June 2016, the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy granted 10 oil and gas exploration licenses in the southeastern Barents Sea. These licenses were part of the "23rd licensing round."

This decision marked an important turning point in Norwegian history because:

First, new areas opened for the first time in 20 years: The Norwegian government opened certain areas of the Barents Sea to oil exploration for the first time after keeping them closed for 20 years.

Second, these are the northernmost licenses in the Arctic: The licenses represent the northernmost oil exploration permits ever granted in Norwegian history. This region has extremely sensitive ecosystems and is directly affected by climate change.

Third, 13 companies received licenses: Norway's state-owned oil company Equinor (formerly Statoil), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Lukoil, and other international companies shared the 10 licenses.

The licenses grant companies exploration rights, meaning authority to conduct seismic research and drill boreholes. However, licenses do not automatically grant oil production rights. A separate permit (Plan for Development and Operation - PDO) is required for production.

B. Just Days Before Signing the Paris Agreement

A critical point: The Norwegian government made the 23rd licensing round decision just days before signing the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement was adopted on December 12, 2015, and signed by 196 countries. The agreement aims to keep global warming below 2°C, preferably below 1.5°C.

While Norway signed the Paris Agreement, it simultaneously opened new oil exploration areas in the Arctic. This contradiction was harshly criticized by environmental organizations.

C. Plaintiffs' Claims

On October 18, 2016, Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom (Young Friends of the Earth Norway) filed suit against the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.

Plaintiffs claimed the 23rd licensing round decision was unlawful for the following reasons:

1. Violation of Norwegian Constitution Article 112: Article 112 of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to a healthy environment and the state must protect this right. Plaintiffs argued Arctic oil exploration violates this right.

2. Inconsistency with Paris Agreement: Norway's approval of new fossil fuel projects contradicts Paris Agreement goals.

3. "Downstream emissions" not assessed: The Norwegian government assessed only direct emissions from oil exploration but did not account for emissions from burning extracted oil (downstream emissions).

Later, the Grandparents' Climate Campaign and Friends of the Earth Norway also joined as interveners.

2. Norwegian Constitution Article 112: Environmental Right

A. Text of Article 112

The Norwegian Constitution (Grunnloven) was adopted in 1814 and is one of the world's oldest written constitutions. In a 2014 amendment, environmental rights were added to the Constitution.

Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution states:

"Every person has the right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained. Natural resources shall be managed on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations which will safeguard this right for future generations as well.
Citizens are entitled to information on the state of the natural environment and on the effects of any encroachment on nature that is planned or carried out. The authorities of the state shall take measures for the implementation of these principles."

Important elements of Article 112:

1. Individual right: Environmental right belongs to every individual. This is not just state policy but a constitutional right.

2. Future generations: The article explicitly recognizes the environmental rights of future generations. This is a constitutional expression of the principle of intergenerational equity.

3. State obligation: The state is obligated to take active measures to protect environmental rights.

4. Right to information: Citizens have the right to be informed on environmental matters.

B. History and Purpose of Article 112

Article 112 was added as part of constitutional reform in 2014. However, environmental protection has a long history in Norwegian law.

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), both adopted in 1992, shaped Norway's environmental policies.

The purpose of Article 112:

1. Place environmental rights under constitutional protection: Making environmental rights constitutional rather than statutory provides stronger protection.

2. Clarify state responsibility: The state cannot remain passive on environmental protection; it must take active measures.

3. Protect future generations: The impact of today's decisions on future generations must be considered.

3. Process in Norwegian Courts (2016-2020)

A. Oslo District Court - January 4, 2018

Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom's case was heard in Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) in November 2017.

Court's decision:

The court ruled in favor of the Norwegian government. The court made the following findings:

1. Article 112 is a rights provision: The court acknowledged that Article 112 creates an actual right, not just a policy statement. This was a partial victory for plaintiffs.

2. However, government fulfilled its obligations: The court found the government conducted necessary environmental assessments before making the licensing decision.

3. No need to assess "downstream emissions": The court's most controversial decision. The court stated:

"CO2 emissions from oil and gas exported from Norway being burned abroad are not relevant for assessing whether Article 112 has been violated."

This decision was harshly criticized by plaintiffs. Emissions from burning oil constitute the vast majority of total emissions. Not assessing these emissions means incomplete calculation of climate impacts.

B. Borgarting Court of Appeals - January 22, 2020

Plaintiffs appealed the Oslo District Court decision to Borgarting Court of Appeals (Borgarting lagmannsrett).

Court's decision:

The appeals court ruled in favor of the Norwegian government. However, it made an important change:

1. Article 112 covers exported oil emissions: Unlike Oslo District Court, the appeals court stated Article 112 covers "downstream emissions."

2. However, emissions cannot be assessed in isolation: The court stated emissions from oil licenses must be assessed in the context of Norway's overall climate policy.

3. Licenses are lawful: After all these assessments, the court ruled the licenses do not violate Article 112.

C. Norwegian Supreme Court - December 22, 2020

Plaintiffs appealed the Borgarting Court of Appeals decision to the Norwegian Supreme Court (Høyesterett).

The Supreme Court heard the case in plenary, meaning all justices reviewed the case.

Court's decision (11-4):

The Norwegian Supreme Court ruled 11-4 in favor of the Norwegian government.

Majority opinion:

1. Future emissions are too uncertain: The majority stated future emissions from oil exploration licenses are too uncertain to justify canceling the licenses at this stage.

2. However, assessment must be made at production stage: The court made this important finding:

"Considerable investments in exploration licenses do not give companies the right to extract found fossil fuels. Authorities have the 'right and duty' to refuse production licenses (PDO) if granting them would violate the environmental right in Article 112 of the Constitution."

This statement would play an important role in future litigation.

3. State has wide margin of appreciation: The court found the state has wide discretion in environmental policy and found no gross negligence in the government's approach.

Dissenting opinion (4 justices):

Four justices dissented, believing Article 112 was violated. Dissenting justices made the following findings:

1. Future emissions are sufficiently predictable: The purpose of exploration licenses is to find and produce oil. Therefore, future emissions are predictable.

2. State obligation was neglected: The state is obligated under Article 112 to assess future emissions and this obligation was not fulfilled.

The Norwegian Supreme Court decision was announced on December 22, 2020. This decision meant all domestic judicial remedies in Norway were exhausted.

4. Application to the European Court of Human Rights (2021)

A. Content of Application

In June 2021, Greenpeace Nordic, Natur og Ungdom, and 6 young activists applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Individual applicants:

Ingrid Skjoldvær (age 27)

Gaute Eiterjord (age 25) - Former president of Natur og Ungdom

Ella Marie Hætta Isaksen (age 23) - Sami people, fishing culture

Mia Cathryn Chamberlain (age 22)

Lasse Eriksen Bjørn (age 24) - Sea Sami culture

Gina Gylver (age 20)

Applicants claimed Norway's 23rd licensing round decision violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

1. Violation of ECHR Article 2 (Right to life): Climate change threatens lives. Norway's approval of new oil projects increases this threat.

2. Violation of ECHR Article 8 (Right to private and family life): Climate change negatively affects private and family life.

3. Violation of ECHR Article 13 (Right to effective remedy): Norwegian courts did not effectively protect applicants' rights.

4. Violation of ECHR Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination): Climate change impacts are more severe for young generations and indigenous peoples (Sami).

B. Amicus Curiae

During the ECtHR process, many organizations submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs:

UN Special Rapporteurs: Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Environment David Boyd and Special Rapporteur on Toxic Substances and Human Rights

ClientEarth (Environmental law organization)

Norwegian Grandparents' Climate Campaign

European Network of National Human Rights Institutions

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

These briefs supported applicants' arguments.

5. European Court of Human Rights Decision - October 28, 2025

A. Content of Decision

The European Court of Human Rights issued its decision in Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway on October 28, 2025.

Decision Information:

• Application No.: 34068/21
• Decision Date: October 28, 2025
• Chamber: Fourth Section
• Decision: UNANIMOUSLY
• Result: NO VIOLATION

Court's basic finding:

The ECtHR ruled Norway did not violate ECHR Article 8. However, this decision comes with important conditions.

B. Scope of Decision

At the outset, the ECtHR made this important finding:

"This case concerns an allegedly flawed decision-making process in one particular licensing round."

The Court limited the case's scope to the decision-making process of the 23rd licensing round. The Court did not examine Norway's general climate policy or decision not to abandon oil production.

This disappointed applicants because they requested assessment of Norway's general fossil fuel policy. However, the ECtHR placed this issue outside the case's scope.

C. Article 2 (Right to Life) - Inadmissibility

The ECtHR ruled the application under Article 2 (right to life) inadmissible.

Reasoning:

1. "Real and immediate risk" requirement not met: For Article 2 to apply, there must be a "real and immediate risk" to applicants' lives.

The Court acknowledged climate change poses a serious threat. However, it stated no direct link could be established between the 23rd licensing round exploration licenses and applicants' lives.

2. Climate change is a global problem: The Court stated:

"The effects of climate change occur globally and result from many sources. It is not possible to characterize a single licensing round as a real and immediate risk to specific individuals' lives."

This reasoning demonstrates the difficulty of applying Article 2 in climate cases.

D. Article 8 (Right to Private and Family Life) - Admissibility

The ECtHR found part of the application under Article 8 admissible.

Individual applicants (6 young people): The ECtHR ruled the 6 young applicants did not have "victim" status.

Reasoning:

"The individual applicants have not demonstrated a sufficiently serious or individualized impact of climate change on their lives, health, or well-being."

Citing KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024), the Court stated there was no "high-intensity exposure."

Organizations (Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom): The ECtHR found both organizations' applications admissible.

The Court recognized environmental organizations have standing to bring environmental cases.

E. Article 8 - Merits Assessment

The ECtHR examined Article 8 on the merits and focused on procedural obligations.

ECtHR's key findings:

1. States have procedural obligations:

Article 8 requires not only protection from environmental harm but also that decision-making processes meet certain standards.

The Court stated:

"Article 8 imposes procedural obligations on states when making environmental decisions. These obligations require decisions to be transparent, informed, and open to the public."

2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) must be comprehensive:

The ECtHR found the EIA Norway conducted before the 23rd licensing round decision incomplete.

Deficiencies identified by the Court:

a. "Downstream emissions" (combustion emissions) not assessed: Norway assessed emissions during oil extraction and transport but did not account for emissions from burning the oil.

b. Compatibility with climate obligations not assessed: Norway did not assess whether new oil projects are compatible with the Paris Agreement and national climate targets.

c. Public participation insufficient: Public information and participation in the decision-making process were inadequate.

3. However, deficiencies can be remedied at later stage:

This is the ECtHR's most important finding. The Court emphasized the 23rd licensing round granted exploration licenses but production permits (PDO) had not yet been issued.

The Court stated:

"The Norwegian Supreme Court held that authorities have the 'right and duty' under Article 112 of the Constitution to refuse PDO (production permits) if climate and environmental considerations so require. This means deficiencies can be remedied at a later stage."

The Court considered Norway's commitments:

• Climate impacts and combustion emissions will be assessed in all new PDO decisions
• Public consultation will be conducted
• EFTA Court's (2025) advisory opinion will be considered

These commitments were instrumental in the ECtHR concluding no violation occurred.

F. Comparison with KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland

In Greenpeace Nordic, the ECtHR frequently cited KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024).

KlimaSeniorinnen decision (April 9, 2024):

In this case, a group of elderly Swiss women sued the Swiss government. The ECtHR ruled Switzerland violated Article 8.

What's the difference?

KlimaSeniorinnen: Switzerland's general climate policy was inadequate. The state failed to take effective climate action.

Greenpeace Nordic: Procedural deficiencies in a single licensing round in Norway were assessed. However, these deficiencies can be remedied at a later stage.

The ECtHR emphasized substantive obligations in KlimaSeniorinnen but procedural obligations in Greenpeace Nordic.

G. EFTA Court Advisory Opinion (2025)

The ECtHR decision also referenced the EFTA Court's 2025 advisory opinion.

What is EFTA Court?

EFTA (European Free Trade Association) is the judicial body for countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) that are not EU members but are part of the European Economic Area (EEA).

EFTA Court's advisory opinion:

In May 2025, the EFTA Court issued an advisory opinion on interpretation of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA Directive - 2011/92/EU).

Court's findings:

1. Combustion emissions must be assessed: EIA must cover not only project's direct emissions but also emissions from burning exported fossil fuels.

2. Deficiencies cannot be remedied later: If the initial EIA is incomplete, remedying deficiencies at a later stage constitutes circumvention of EU law.

This decision strengthened Norway's obligation to conduct comprehensive EIA in all future PDO applications.

6. Practical Consequences of Decision

A. Consequences for Norway

The ECtHR decision requires Norway to fulfill the following obligations in all future fossil fuel projects:

1. Comprehensive EIA must be conducted: Comprehensive EIA must be conducted for every production permit (PDO) application.

2. Combustion emissions must be assessed: EIA must cover "downstream emissions" from burning extracted oil.

3. Compatibility with climate obligations must be assessed: Whether new projects are compatible with Paris Agreement and national climate targets must be assessed.

4. Public participation must be ensured: Public must be informed and consulted, decisions must be transparent.

B. Precedent for Other Countries

Greenpeace Nordic sets precedent not only for Norway but for all Council of Europe member states.

Decision's impact on other countries:

1. Standard for new fossil fuel projects: ECtHR clarified that states must conduct comprehensive climate impact assessment before approving new fossil fuel projects.

2. "Downstream emissions" must be assessed: Not only project's direct emissions but emissions from burning exported fossil fuels must be assessed.

3. Importance of procedural rights: ECtHR emphasized the importance of procedural rights in environmental decision-making.

C. Development of Climate Law

Greenpeace Nordic is an important step in global climate law development.

Comparison with other landmark decisions:

Urgenda v. Netherlands (2019): Dutch Supreme Court ordered Dutch government to increase climate targets.

KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024): ECtHR found Switzerland's general climate policy inadequate.

Greenpeace Nordic v. Norway (2025): ECtHR clarified procedural obligations.

Each decision develops a different dimension of climate law.

7. Conclusion

The Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway decision is the result of a 9-year legal struggle. The ECtHR ruled Norway did not violate human rights, but emphasized comprehensive environmental impact assessment must be conducted in all future fossil fuel projects.

While the decision disappointed applicants (Norway won), it established an important legal foundation for the future (procedural obligations clarified).

Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution demonstrates the Nordic legal system's commitment to environmental protection. The ECtHR decision revealed the international dimension of this constitutional right.

Greenpeace Nordic is an example of "winning by losing." Applicants lost the case but raised the standard for assessing all future fossil fuel projects.

References

• Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway, App. no. 34068/21 (October 28, 2025)
• Norwegian Constitution (Grunnloven) Article 112
• Oslo District Court Decision (January 4, 2018)
• Borgarting Court of Appeals Decision (January 22, 2020)
• Norwegian Supreme Court Decision (December 22, 2020)
• European Convention on Human Rights - Articles 2, 8, 13, 14
• KlimaSeniorinnen and Others v. Switzerland, App. no. 53600/20 (April 9, 2024)
• EFTA Court Advisory Opinion (May 2025)
• Urgenda v. Netherlands, Hoge Raad (December 20, 2019)
• Paris Agreement (December 12, 2015)

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Greenpeace Nordic v. Norway: Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi'nin Arktik Petrol Kararı ve Norveç Anayasası Madde 112'nin Sınırları

28 Ekim 2025 tarihinde, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM), Norveç hükümetine karşı açılan ve 9 yıl süren tarihi bir iklim davasını karara bağlamıştır. Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway kararı, devletlerin yeni fosil yakıt projelerini onaylamadan önce iklim etkilerini değerlendirme yükümlülüklerini netleştirmiş ve çevre hakkının prosedürel boyutunu yeniden tanımlamıştır.

Bu karar, İskandinav hukuk sisteminin çevre korumaya yaklaşımını ve Norveç Anayasası'nın 112. maddesinin uygulama alanını göstermektedir. AİHM, Norveç'in insan haklarını ihlal etmediğine karar vermiş, ancak gelecekte tüm fosil yakıt projelerinde kapsamlı bir çevresel etki değerlendirmesi yapılması gerektiğini vurgulamıştır.

Bu yazıda, 9 yıllık yargılama sürecinin arka planı, Norveç Anayasası Madde 112'nin içeriği, Norveç mahkeme kararları ve AİHM'in gerekçeleri incelenecektir.

1. Olayların Arka Planı: Barents Denizi ve 23. Lisans Turu

A. Norveç'in Arktik Petrol Politikası

Haziran 2016'da, Norveç Petrol ve Enerji Bakanlığı (Ministry of Petroleum and Energy), Barents Denizi'nin güneydoğu bölümünde 10 adet petrol ve gaz arama lisansı vermiştir. Bu lisanslar, "23. Lisans Turu" (23rd licensing round) olarak adlandırılan sürecin bir parçasıdır.

Bu karar, Norveç tarihinde önemli bir dönüm noktasıdır çünkü:

Birincisi, 20 yılın ardından ilk kez yeni alanlar açılmıştır: Norveç hükümeti, 20 yıl boyunca kapalı tutulan Barents Denizi'nin belirli bölümlerini ilk kez petrol aramasına açmıştır.

İkincisi, Arktik bölgesindeki en kuzeydeki lisanslardır: Lisanslar, Norveç tarihindeki en kuzeyde verilen petrol arama izinleridir. Bu bölge, son derece hassas ekosistemlere sahiptir ve iklim değişikliğinden doğrudan etkilenmektedir.

Üçüncüsü, 13 şirket lisans almıştır: Norveç'in devlete ait petrol şirketi Equinor (eski adıyla Statoil), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Lukoil ve diğer uluslararası şirketler 10 lisans paylaştırmıştır.

Lisanslar, şirketlere arama (exploration) hakkı vermektedir. Bu, sismik araştırmalar yapma ve sondaj delikleri açma yetkisi anlamına gelir. Ancak lisanslar, otomatik olarak petrol üretim (production) hakkı vermemektedir. Üretim için ayrı bir izin (Plan for Development and Operation - PDO) gereklidir.

B. Paris Anlaşması'nın İmzalanmasından Sadece Birkaç Gün Önce

Kritik bir nokta: Norveç hükümeti, 23. Lisans Turu kararını Paris Anlaşması'nı imzalamadan sadece birkaç gün önce almıştır.

Paris Anlaşması, 12 Aralık 2015'te kabul edilmiş ve 196 ülke tarafından imzalanmıştır. Anlaşma, küresel ısınmayı 2°C'nin altında, tercihen 1.5°C'nin altında tutmayı hedeflemektedir.

Norveç, Paris Anlaşması'nı imzalarken, aynı zamanda Arktik'te yeni petrol arama alanları açmıştır. Bu çelişki, çevre örgütleri tarafından sert bir şekilde eleştirilmiştir.

C. Davacıların İddiası

18 Ekim 2016'da, Greenpeace Nordic ve Natur og Ungdom (Young Friends of the Earth Norway - Norveç Genç Çevre Dostları), Norveç Petrol ve Enerji Bakanlığı'na karşı dava açmıştır.

Davacılar, 23. Lisans Turu kararının şu sebeplerle hukuka aykırı olduğunu iddia etmişlerdir:

1. Norveç Anayasası Madde 112 ihlali: Anayasa'nın 112. maddesi, her insanın sağlıklı bir çevreye hakkı olduğunu ve devletin bu hakkı koruması gerektiğini belirtmektedir. Davacılar, Arktik petrol aramalarının bu hakkı ihlal ettiğini savunmuşlardır.

2. Paris Anlaşması'na aykırılık: Norveç'in yeni fosil yakıt projeleri onaylaması, Paris Anlaşması'nın hedefleriyle çelişmektedir.

3. "Downstream emissions" (sonraki aşama emisyonları) değerlendirilmemiştir: Norveç hükümeti, sadece petrol aramalarının doğrudan emisyonlarını değerlendirmiş, ancak çıkarılan petrolün yakılmasından kaynaklanan emisyonları (downstream emissions) hesaba katmamıştır.

Daha sonra, Grandparents' Climate Campaign (Büyükanne ve Büyükbabalar İklim Kampanyası) ve Friends of the Earth Norway (Norveç Çevre Dostları) da davaya müdahil olarak katılmıştır.

2. Norveç Anayasası Madde 112: Çevre Hakkı

A. Madde 112'nin Metni

Norveç Anayasası (Grunnloven), 1814 yılında kabul edilmiştir ve dünyanın en eski yazılı anayasalarından biridir. 2014 yılında yapılan bir değişiklikle, Anayasa'ya çevre hakkı eklenmiştir.

Norveç Anayasası Madde 112 şu şekildedir:

"Her insan, sağlığına ve verimliliği ve çeşitliliği muhafaza edilen bir doğal çevreye elverişli bir çevreye hakkı vardır. Doğal kaynaklar, bu ilkeyi dikkate alarak ve gelecek nesillerin de bu hakkını güvence altına alacak şekilde yönetilmeli ve kullanılmalıdır.
Vatandaşlar, çevrenin durumu ve çevre üzerindeki etkileri hakkında bilgilendirilme hakkına sahiptir. Devlet yetkilileri, bu ilkeleri uygulamak için önlemler almalıdır."

Madde 112'nin önemli unsurları şunlardır:

1. Bireysel hak: Çevre hakkı, her bireyin hakkıdır. Bu, sadece bir devlet politikası değil, anayasal bir haktır.

2. Gelecek nesiller: Madde, gelecek nesillerin de çevre hakkını açıkça tanımaktadır. Bu, kuşaklararası adalet (intergenerational equity) ilkesinin anayasal bir ifadesidir.

3. Devletin yükümlülüğü: Devlet, çevre hakkını korumak için aktif önlemler almakla yükümlüdür.

4. Bilgilendirilme hakkı: Vatandaşlar, çevresel konularda bilgilendirilme hakkına sahiptir.

B. Madde 112'nin Tarihi ve Amacı

Madde 112, 2014 yılında yapılan anayasa reformunun bir parçası olarak eklenmiştir. Ancak çevre koruma, Norveç hukukunda uzun bir geçmişe sahiptir.

1992 yılında kabul edilen Rio Çevre ve Kalkınma Bildirgesi (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development) ve Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Çerçeve Sözleşmesi (UNFCCC), Norveç'in çevre politikalarını şekillendirmiştir.

Madde 112'nin amacı:

1. Çevre hakkını anayasal koruma altına almak: Çevre hakkının yasal değil, anayasal bir hak olması, daha güçlü bir koruma sağlar.

2. Devletin sorumluluğunu netleştirmek: Devlet, çevre koruma konusunda pasif kalamaz; aktif önlemler almak zorundadır.

3. Gelecek nesilleri korumak: Bugünkü kararların gelecek nesiller üzerindeki etkisi göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

3. Norveç Mahkemelerindeki Süreç (2016-2020)

A. Oslo District Court (İlk Derece Mahkemesi) - 4 Ocak 2018

Greenpeace Nordic ve Natur og Ungdom'un davası, Kasım 2017'de Oslo İlk Derece Mahkemesi'nde (Oslo tingrett / Oslo District Court) görülmüştür.

Mahkeme'nin kararı:

Mahkeme, Norveç hükümeti lehine karar vermiştir. Mahkeme, şu tespitleri yapmıştır:

1. Madde 112 bir hak hükmüdür (rights provision): Mahkeme, Madde 112'nin sadece bir politika beyanı değil, gerçek bir hak yarattığını kabul etmiştir. Bu, davacılar için kısmi bir zaferdir.

2. Ancak hükümet yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmiştir: Mahkeme, hükümetin lisans kararını vermeden önce gerekli çevresel değerlendirmeleri yaptığını tespit etmiştir.

3. "Downstream emissions" (sonraki aşama emisyonları) değerlendirilmesine gerek yoktur: Mahkeme'nin en tartışmalı kararı budur. Mahkeme, şu ifadeleri kullanmıştır:

"Norveç'ten ihraç edilen petrol ve gazın yurtdışında yakılmasından kaynaklanan CO2 emisyonları, Madde 112'nin ihlal edilip edilmediğinin değerlendirilmesinde alakasızdır."

Bu karar, davacılar tarafından sert bir şekilde eleştirilmiştir. Petrolün yakılmasından kaynaklanan emisyonlar, toplam emisyonların büyük çoğunluğunu oluşturmaktadır. Bu emisyonları değerlendirmeye almamak, iklim etkilerinin eksik hesaplanması anlamına gelir.

B. Borgarting Court of Appeals (Temyiz Mahkemesi) - 22 Ocak 2020

Davacılar, Oslo İlk Derece Mahkemesi'nin kararına karşı Borgarting Temyiz Mahkemesi'ne (Borgarting lagmannsrett / Borgarting Court of Appeals) başvurmuşlardır.

Mahkeme'nin kararı:

Temyiz Mahkemesi, Norveç hükümeti lehine karar vermiştir. Ancak önemli bir değişiklik yapmıştır:

1. Madde 112, ihraç edilen petrolün emisyonlarını da kapsar: Temyiz Mahkemesi, Oslo İlk Derece Mahkemesi'nden farklı olarak, Madde 112'nin "downstream emissions"ı da kapsadığını belirtmiştir.

2. Ancak emisyonlar izole olarak değerlendirilemez: Mahkeme, petrol lisanslarından kaynaklanan emisyonların, Norveç'in genel iklim politikası bağlamında değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini belirtmiştir.

3. Lisanslar hukuka uygundur: Mahkeme, tüm bu değerlendirmelerden sonra, lisansların Madde 112'yi ihlal etmediğine karar vermiştir.

C. Norwegian Supreme Court (Norveç Yüksek Mahkemesi) - 22 Aralık 2020

Davacılar, Borgarting Temyiz Mahkemesi'nin kararına karşı Norveç Yüksek Mahkemesi'ne (Høyesterett / Supreme Court of Norway) başvurmuşlardır.

Yüksek Mahkeme, davayı genel kurul (plenary) olarak görmüştür. Bu, tüm hâkimlerin davaya baktığı anlamına gelir.

Mahkeme'nin kararı (11-4):

Norveç Yüksek Mahkemesi, 11-4 çoğunlukla Norveç hükümeti lehine karar vermiştir.

Çoğunluk görüşü:

1. Gelecekteki emisyonlar çok belirsizdir: Çoğunluk, petrol arama lisanslarından kaynaklanan gelecekteki emisyonların çok belirsiz olduğunu, bu nedenle bu aşamada lisansların iptal edilmesini haklı göstermediğini belirtmiştir.

2. Ancak üretim aşamasında değerlendirme yapılmalıdır: Mahkeme, şu önemli tespiti yapmıştır:

"Arama lisanslarına yapılan önemli yatırımlar, şirketlere bulunan fosil yakıtları çıkarma hakkı vermez. Yetkililer, üretim lisansı (PDO) vermenin Anayasa'nın 112. maddesindeki çevre hakkını ihlal edeceği durumlarda, bu lisansları reddetme 'hakkına ve görevine' sahiptir."

Bu ifade, gelecekteki davalarda önemli bir rol oynayacaktır.

3. Devletin geniş takdir yetkisi vardır: Mahkeme, devletin çevre politikasında geniş bir takdir yetkisine sahip olduğunu ve hükümetin yaklaşımında ağır ihmal (gross negligence) bulunmadığını tespit etmiştir.

Azınlık görüşü (4 hâkim):

4 hâkim, Madde 112'nin ihlal edildiği görüşünde muhalif kalmıştır. Muhalif hâkimler, şu tespitleri yapmıştır:

1. Gelecekteki emisyonlar yeterince tahmin edilebilir: Arama lisanslarının amacı, petrol bulmak ve üretmektir. Bu nedenle, gelecekteki emisyonlar tahmin edilebilir düzeydedir.

2. Devletin yükümlülüğü ihmal edilmiştir: Devlet, Madde 112 uyarınca gelecekteki emisyonları değerlendirmekle yükümlüdür ve bu yükümlülük yerine getirilmemiştir.

Norveç Yüksek Mahkemesi'nin kararı, 22 Aralık 2020'de açıklanmıştır. Bu karar, Norveç içinde tüm yargısal yolların tüketildiği anlamına gelir.

4. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi'ne Başvuru (2021)

A. Başvurunun İçeriği

Haziran 2021'de, Greenpeace Nordic, Natur og Ungdom ve 6 genç aktivist Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi'ne (AİHM) başvurmuşlardır.

Bireysel başvurucular:

Ingrid Skjoldvær (27 yaşında)

Gaute Eiterjord (25 yaşında) - Natur og Ungdom eski başkanı

Ella Marie Hætta Isaksen (23 yaşında) - Sami halkından, balıkçılık kültürü

Mia Cathryn Chamberlain (22 yaşında)

Lasse Eriksen Bjørn (24 yaşında) - Sea Sami kültüründen

Gina Gylver (20 yaşında)

Başvurucular, Norveç hükümetinin 23. Lisans Turu kararının Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi'ni (AİHS) ihlal ettiğini iddia etmişlerdir:

1. AİHS Madde 2 (Yaşam hakkı) ihlali: İklim değişikliği, yaşamları tehdit etmektedir. Norveç'in yeni petrol projeleri onaylaması, bu tehdidi artırmaktadır.

2. AİHS Madde 8 (Özel ve aile hayatına saygı hakkı) ihlali: İklim değişikliği, özel ve aile hayatını olumsuz etkilemektedir.

3. AİHS Madde 13 (Etkili başvuru hakkı) ihlali: Norveç mahkemeleri, davacıların haklarını etkili bir şekilde korumamıştır.

4. AİHS Madde 14 (Ayrımcılık yasağı) ihlali: İklim değişikliğinin etkileri, genç nesiller ve yerli halklar (Sami) için daha ağırdır.

B. Amicus Curiae (Dost Görüşleri)

AİHM sürecinde, birçok kuruluş amicus curiae (mahkemeye dost görüş) sunmuştur:

BM Özel Raportörleri: İnsan Hakları ve Çevre Özel Raportörü David Boyd ve Toksik Maddeler ve İnsan Hakları Özel Raportörü

ClientEarth (Çevre hukuku örgütü)

Norwegian Grandparents' Climate Campaign

European Network of National Human Rights Institutions

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

Bu görüşler, davacıların argümanlarını desteklemiştir.

5. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararı - 28 Ekim 2025

A. Kararın İçeriği

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, 28 Ekim 2025 tarihinde Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway kararını vermiştir.

Karar Bilgileri:

• Başvuru No: 34068/21
• Karar Tarihi: 28 Ekim 2025
• Daire: Dördüncü Daire (Fourth Section)
• Karar: OYBIRLIĞIYLE (unanimously)
• Sonuç: İhlal YOKTUR

Mahkeme'nin temel tespiti:

AİHM, Norveç'in AİHS Madde 8'i ihlal etmediğine karar vermiştir. Ancak bu karar, önemli şartlara bağlıdır.

B. Kararın Kapsamı

AİHM, kararının başında şu önemli tespiti yapmıştır:

"Bu dava, tek bir belirli lisans turunda iddia edilen hatalı bir karar alma sürecini ilgilendirmektedir."

Mahkeme, davanın kapsamını 23. Lisans Turu'nun karar alma süreciyle sınırlandırmıştır. Mahkeme, Norveç'in genel iklim politikasını veya petrol üretiminden vazgeçmeme kararını incelememiştir.

Bu, davacılar için bir hayal kırıklığıdır çünkü onlar Norveç'in genel fosil yakıt politikasının değerlendirilmesini talep etmişlerdir. Ancak AİHM, bu konuyu davanın kapsamı dışında bırakmıştır.

C. Madde 2 (Yaşam Hakkı) - Kabul Edilemezlik

AİHM, Madde 2 (yaşam hakkı) kapsamındaki başvurunun kabul edilemez olduğuna karar vermiştir.

Gerekçe:

1. "Real and immediate risk" (gerçek ve yakın tehlike) şartı karşılanmamıştır: Madde 2'nin uygulanabilmesi için, başvurucuların yaşamlarına yönelik "gerçek ve yakın bir tehlike" bulunmalıdır.

Mahkeme, iklim değişikliğinin ciddi bir tehdit oluşturduğunu kabul etmiştir. Ancak 23. Lisans Turu'nun arama lisansları ile başvurucuların yaşamları arasında doğrudan bir bağlantı kurulamadığını belirtmiştir.

2. İklim değişikliği, küresel bir sorundur: Mahkeme, şu ifadeleri kullanmıştır:

"İklim değişikliğinin etkileri, küresel ölçekte gerçekleşir ve birçok kaynaktan kaynaklanır. Tek bir lisans turunu, belirli bireylerin yaşamları için gerçek ve yakın bir tehlike olarak nitelendirmek mümkün değildir."

Bu gerekçe, iklim davalarında Madde 2'nin uygulanmasının zorluğunu göstermektedir.

D. Madde 8 (Özel ve Aile Hayatına Saygı Hakkı) - Kabul Edilebilirlik

AİHM, Madde 8 kapsamındaki başvurunun bir kısmını kabul edilebilir bulmuştur.

Bireysel başvurucular (6 genç): AİHM, 6 genç başvurucunun "mağdur" (victim) statüsüne sahip olmadıklarına karar vermiştir.

Gerekçe:

"Bireysel başvurucular, iklim değişikliğinin yaşamları, sağlıkları veya refahları üzerinde yeterince ciddi veya bireyselleştirilmiş bir etkisini gösterememişlerdir."

Mahkeme, KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024) kararına atıf yaparak, "high-intensity exposure" (yüksek yoğunlukta maruz kalma) olmadığını belirtmiştir.

Kuruluşlar (Greenpeace Nordic ve Natur og Ungdom): AİHM, iki kuruluşun başvurularını kabul edilebilir bulmuştur.

Mahkeme, çevre örgütlerinin çevresel konularda dava açma hakkının olduğunu kabul etmiştir.

E. Madde 8 - Esasa İlişkin Değerlendirme

AİHM, Madde 8'in esasını incelemiş ve prosedürel yükümlülükler üzerine odaklanmıştır.

AİHM'in temel tespitleri:

1. Devletlerin prosedürel yükümlülükleri vardır:

Madde 8, sadece çevresel zararlardan koruma değil, aynı zamanda karar alma süreçlerinin belirli standartları karşılamasını gerektirir.

Mahkeme, şu ifadeleri kullanmıştır:

"Madde 8, çevresel konularda karar alırken devletlere prosedürel yükümlülükler yükler. Bu yükümlülükler, kararların şeffaf, bilgiye dayalı ve kamuya açık olmasını gerektirir."

2. Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi (ÇED) kapsamlı olmalıdır:

AİHM, Norveç'in 23. Lisans Turu kararını vermeden önce yaptığı ÇED'in eksik olduğunu tespit etmiştir.

Mahkeme'nin tespit ettiği eksiklikler:

a. "Downstream emissions" (yakma emisyonları) değerlendirilmemiştir: Norveç, petrolün çıkarılması ve taşınması sırasındaki emisyonları değerlendirmiş, ancak petrolün yakılmasından kaynaklanan emisyonları hesaba katmamıştır.

b. İklim yükümlülükleriyle uyumluluğu değerlendirilmemiştir: Norveç, yeni petrol projelerinin Paris Anlaşması ve ulusal iklim hedefleriyle uyumlu olup olmadığını değerlendirmemiştir.

c. Kamusal katılım yeterli değildir: Karar alma sürecinde, kamu bilgilendirmesi ve katılımı yetersiz kalmıştır.

3. Ancak eksiklikler sonraki aşamada giderilebilir:

AİHM'in en önemli tespiti budur. Mahkeme, 23. Lisans Turu'nun arama lisansları verdiğini, ancak henüz üretim izni (PDO) verilmediğini vurgulamıştır.

Mahkeme, şu ifadeleri kullanmıştır:

"Norveç Yüksek Mahkemesi, yetkililerin Anayasa Madde 112 uyarınca, iklim ve çevresel hususlar gerektiriyorsa PDO (üretim izni) vermeyi reddetme 'hakkı ve görevine' sahip olduklarını belirtmiştir. Bu, eksikliklerin sonraki aşamada giderilebileceği anlamına gelir."

Mahkeme, Norveç hükümetinin şu taahhütlerini dikkate almıştır:

• Tüm yeni PDO kararlarında, iklim etkileri ve yakma emisyonları değerlendirilecektir.
• Kamuya açık danışma yapılacaktır.
• EFTA Court'un (2025) tavsiye kararı dikkate alınacaktır.

Bu taahhütler, AİHM'in ihlal olmadığı sonucuna varmasında etkili olmuştur.

F. KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland ile Karşılaştırma

AİHM, Greenpeace Nordic kararında, KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024) kararına sık sık atıf yapmıştır.

KlimaSeniorinnen kararı (9 Nisan 2024):

Bu davada, İsviçre'deki yaşlı kadınlar grubu, İsviçre hükümetine karşı dava açmıştır. AİHM, İsviçre'nin Madde 8'i ihlal ettiğine karar vermiştir.

Fark nedir?

KlimaSeniorinnen: İsviçre'nin genel iklim politikası yetersizdi. Devlet, etkili iklim eylemi almamıştır.

Greenpeace Nordic: Norveç'in tek bir lisans turundaki prosedürel eksiklikleri değerlendirilmiştir. Ancak bu eksiklikler, sonraki aşamada giderilebilir.

AİHM, KlimaSeniorinnen kararında maddi yükümlülükleri (substantive obligations), Greenpeace Nordic kararında ise prosedürel yükümlülükleri (procedural obligations) ön plana çıkarmıştır.

G. EFTA Court Tavsiye Kararı (2025)

AİHM kararında, EFTA Court'un (EFTA Mahkemesi) 2025 tarihli tavsiye kararına da atıf yapılmıştır.

EFTA Court nedir?

EFTA (European Free Trade Association), AB üyesi olmayan ancak Avrupa Ekonomik Alanı'na (EEA) dahil olan ülkelerin (İzlanda, Lihtenştayn, Norveç) yargı organıdır.

EFTA Court'un tavsiye kararı:

EFTA Court, Mayıs 2025'te, AB Çevresel Etki Değerlendirmesi Direktifi'nin (EIA Directive - 2011/92/EU) yorumu hakkında tavsiye kararı vermiştir.

Mahkeme'nin tespitleri:

1. Yakma emisyonları değerlendirilmelidir: ÇED, sadece projenin doğrudan emisyonlarını değil, aynı zamanda ihraç edilen fosil yakıtların yakılmasından kaynaklanan emisyonları da kapsamalıdır.

2. Eksiklikler sonradan giderilemez: Eğer ilk aşamada ÇED eksikse, bu eksikliklerin sonraki aşamada giderilmesi AB hukukunu atlatma (circumvention) anlamına gelir.

Bu karar, Norveç'in gelecekteki tüm PDO başvurularında kapsamlı ÇED yapma yükümlülüğünü güçlendirmiştir.

6. Kararın Pratik Sonuçları

A. Norveç İçin Sonuçlar

AİHM kararı, Norveç'in gelecekteki tüm fosil yakıt projelerinde şu yükümlülükleri yerine getirmesini gerektirmektedir:

1. Kapsamlı ÇED yapılmalıdır: Her üretim izni (PDO) başvurusunda, kapsamlı bir ÇED yapılmalıdır.

2. Yakma emisyonları değerlendirilmelidir: ÇED, çıkarılan petrolün yakılmasından kaynaklanan "downstream emissions"ı da kapsamalıdır.

3. İklim yükümlülükleriyle uyumluluk değerlendirilmelidir: Yeni projelerin Paris Anlaşması ve ulusal iklim hedefleriyle uyumlu olup olmadığı değerlendirilmelidir.

4. Kamusal katılım sağlanmalıdır: Kamuya bilgilendirme ve danışma yapılmalı, kararlar şeffaf olmalıdır.

B. Diğer Ülkeler İçin Emsal

Greenpeace Nordic kararı, sadece Norveç için değil, tüm Avrupa Konseyi üye ülkeleri için emsal teşkil etmektedir.

Kararın diğer ülkelere etkileri:

1. Yeni fosil yakıt projeleri için standart: AİHM, devletlerin yeni fosil yakıt projelerini onaylamadan önce kapsamlı iklim etki değerlendirmesi yapması gerektiğini netleştirmiştir.

2. "Downstream emissions" değerlendirilmelidir: Sadece projenin doğrudan emisyonları değil, ihraç edilen fosil yakıtların yakılmasından kaynaklanan emisyonlar da değerlendirilmelidir.

3. Prosedürel hakların önemi: AİHM, çevresel karar alma süreçlerinde prosedürel hakların önemini vurgulamıştır.

C. İklim Hukuku Gelişimi

Greenpeace Nordic kararı, küresel iklim hukuku gelişiminde önemli bir adımdır.

Diğer emsal kararlarla karşılaştırma:

Urgenda v. Netherlands (2019): Hollanda Yüksek Mahkemesi, Hollanda hükümetinin iklim hedeflerini artırmasını emretmiştir.

KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024): AİHM, İsviçre'nin genel iklim politikasını yetersiz bulmuştur.

Greenpeace Nordic v. Norway (2025): AİHM, prosedürel yükümlülükleri netleştirmiştir.

Her karar, iklim hukukunun farklı bir boyutunu geliştirmektedir.

7. Sonuç

Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway kararı, 9 yıllık bir hukuk mücadelesinin sonucudur. AİHM, Norveç'in insan haklarını ihlal etmediğine karar vermiş, ancak gelecekte tüm fosil yakıt projelerinde kapsamlı çevresel etki değerlendirmesi yapılması gerektiğini vurgulamıştır.

Karar, bir yandan davacılar için hayal kırıklığı yaratmış (Norveç kazandı), diğer yandan gelecek için önemli bir hukuki temel oluşturmuştur (prosedürel yükümlülükler netleşti).

Norveç Anayasası Madde 112, İskandinav hukuk sisteminin çevre korumaya verdiği önemi göstermektedir. AİHM kararı, bu anayasal hakkın uluslararası boyutunu ortaya koymuştur.

Greenpeace Nordic kararı, "kaybederek kazanma" (winning by losing) örneğidir. Davacılar davayı kaybetmiş, ancak gelecekteki tüm fosil yakıt projelerinin değerlendirilme standardını yükseltmişlerdir.

Kaynaklar

• Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway, App. no. 34068/21 (28 Ekim 2025)
• Norveç Anayasası (Grunnloven) Madde 112
• Oslo District Court Kararı (4 Ocak 2018)
• Borgarting Court of Appeals Kararı (22 Ocak 2020)
• Norwegian Supreme Court Kararı (22 Aralık 2020)
• Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi - Madde 2, 8, 13, 14
• KlimaSeniorinnen and Others v. Switzerland, App. no. 53600/20 (9 Nisan 2024)
• EFTA Court Tavsiye Kararı (Mayıs 2025)
• Urgenda v. Netherlands, Hoge Raad (20 Aralık 2019)
• Paris Anlaşması (12 Aralık 2015)

Yasal Uyarı: Bu yazı genel bilgilendirme amaçlıdır ve hukuki tavsiye niteliği taşımaz.