Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy

Two environmental NGO's sued the Norwegian government seeking to invalidate leases for oil and gas extraction in the Barents Sea. The groups made a rights based argument under article 112 of the Norwegian constitution. Ultimately the courts ruled against the plaintiffs and allowed the leases to move forward.

Background
A coalition of environmental groups sought a declaratory judgment from the Oslo District Court that Norway’s Ministry of Petroleum and Energy violated the Norwegian constitution by issuing a block of oil and gas licenses for deep-sea extraction from sites in the Barents Sea. Their petition highlighted several key factual points:
 * The licenses would allow access to as-yet undeveloped fossil fuel deposits, and such development is inconsistent with the climate change mitigation required to avert global warming of 1.5°C and possibly even 2°C in excess of pre-industrial levels;
 * The area made accessible by the licenses would be the northernmost yet developed, and would abut the ice zone—thus rigs and tankers would be exposed to unprecedented risks of damage and spills, and their operation would deliver emissions of black carbon to the highly sensitive arctic; and
 * The Norwegian government will incur costs to develop the sites, and will only recoup those costs if the oil and gas they produce commands and adequately high market price.

Relevant Law and Principles

 * Norwegian Constitution (article 112)
 * Precautionary Principle

Ruling
The Oslo District Court ruled in favor of the Norwegian Government on January 4, 2018. The court recognized that Article 112 of the Constitution is a rights provision, but found that the government did not violate any relevant rights because it had fulfilled the necessary duties before making the licensing decision. The court also declared that, “[e]missions of CO2 abroad from oil and gas exported from Norway are irrelevant when assessing whether the Decision entails a violation of Article 112.” In its assessment of whether the government had fulfilled its duties in regard to traditional environmental harm or other climate effects, the court noted that the Storting, (the Norwegian Parliament), had broadly agreed to open the southeast Barents Sea to licensing and had considered proposals to halt that licensing or review whether it was inappropriate in light of the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change. According to the court’s decision, the involvement of the Storting could be found in itself sufficient to indicate that the duty to take measures had been fulfilled. The case is currently active and the plaintiffs appealed the decision on February 24, 2020. The Norwegian Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on April 20.

Links
Date: 2016
 * Sabin Center Database
 * Grantham Research Institute
 * https://www.greenpeace.org/norway/pressemelding/544/greenpeace-and-nature-and-youth-take-the-norwegian-government-to-the-supreme-court/
 * Sensitive Intervention Point: Ending Fossil Fuel Exploration and Extraction Permitting (Post-Carbon Transition)