Norway's top court dismisses Greenpeace challenge over oil exploration

Environmental groups claim Artic oil drilling breaches country's climate change agreements

Norway’s attorney-general Fredrik Sejersted (L) has taken seat in a courtroom in Oslo on November 14, 2017, before the start of a trial where the Norwegian government is being sued by climate activists over a decision to open up areas of the Arctic Ocean for oil exploration. - Greenpeace, along with Natur og Ungdom (Nature and Youth), an environmental group targeting youths, has sued the Norwegian state over licences awarded in 2016 for oil prospecting in the Barents Sea. The plaintiffs accuse Norway of violating the COP 21 Paris accord and a section of the constitution amended in 2014 that guarantees the right to a healthy environment. (Photo by Heiko JUNGE / NTB Scanpix / AFP) / Norway OUT
Powered by automated translation

Norway's Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a challenge from environmental groups trying to stop oil exploration in the Arctic after a battle over the country's climate change commitments.
By a vote of 11 to four, the court rejected the argument of two organisations, Greenpeace and Young Friends of the Earth Norway, which claimed that the granting of 10 oil exploration licences in the Barents Sea in 2016 was unconstitutional.

Referring to the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit global warming to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the environmental groups argued that the oil licences were a breach of article 112 of Norway's constitution, designed to guarantee citizens the right to a healthy environment.
The claims – twice previously rejected – and their hopes were finally dashed by the Supreme Court, which delivered the verdict by videoconference.
The majority of the court agreed that article 112 could be invoked if the state failed to meet its climate and environmental obligations – but it was not found applicable in this case.
The court also held that the granting of oil permits was not contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, in part because they did not represent "a real and immediate risk" to life and physical integrity.
"We are outraged with this judgment, which leaves youth and future generations without constitutional protection," said Therese Hugstmyr Woie, head of Young Friends of the Earth Norway. "The Supreme Court chooses loyalty to Norwegian oil over our rights to a liveable future."
Before the Supreme Court ruling, Greenpeace had considered taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The group described the case as historical and one that could influence the future oil policy of Norway, western Europe's biggest producer of hydrocarbons.

Cases involving climate change are increasingly going before the courts. In the Netherlands in 2019, the state was ordered to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 per cent before 2020, after a case was brought to the country's highest court by environmental group Urgenda.