When the Climate Changes, So Must the States – ECtHR Demands Climate Risk Assessment by Governments

What are the obligations of States regarding climate change within the context of human rights law protection? 

On 28 October 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) issued a judgment against Norway (application no. 34068/21), which, in brief, establishes that under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the approval of new petroleum production projects requires a comprehensive climate assessment (CCA) either at the exploration stage or, in case the extraction of petroleum (i.e. fossil fuels) is subject to a separate approval decision, before the commencement of the production stage.

In this blog, we briefly discuss the main highlights of this judgment and, particularly, the impact it could have for businesses.

Analyzing the judgment 

Background

The dispute arose because Norway approved new oil and gas licenses in the Barents Sea without a full climate impact assessment, particularly concerning emissions from burning exported oil abroad. Environmental organizations argued this violated the right to a healthy environment and human rights protections under the Convention.

In 2013, the Norwegian Parliament approved opening the south-east Barents Sea for petroleum exploration under the Norwegian Petroleum Act. Before this decision, the Government conducted an impact assessment to evaluate the likely environmental, social, and economic effects of petroleum activities in the area. During these public consultations, objections were raised by various environmental groups arguing that opening new oil areas would breach Norway’s climate commitments. Despite this, the final report deemed the environmental impact minor and ignored distinctions between domestic and foreign emissions. On April 26, 2013, the Ministry’s paper “New Opportunities for Northern Norway” endorsed opening the area, highlighting economic benefits and minimizing environmental concerns — a decision the Government approved that same day.

On 10 June 2016, Norway’s Ministry of Petroleum and Energy awarded 10 new production licenses (including 3 in the south-east Barents Sea). Four years later, the exploration showed no commercially viable discoveries, which resulted in the withdrawal of most of the granted licenses. The aforementioned licensing decisions nevertheless triggered major legal action by environmental organizations. Subsequently, various environmental groups and six other individual applicants (the Applicants) filed on 18 October 2016 a lawsuit seeking judicial review of the 2016 licensing decision. In short, the Applicants argued that the licensing decision violated:

• Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution (right to a healthy environment), and

• Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life and private/family life).

Moreover, the Applicants also claimed that the Government had failed to consider global downstream emissions (from burning exported oil and gas). However, the Applicants' claims were turned down before every Norwegian court. Although the Norwegian Supreme Court acknowledged that Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution provides individuals with environmental rights, it also ruled that Parliament’s political discretion in such matters is very broad and that the Government had not grossly neglected its duties. Consequently, the Government’s licensing decision was deemed valid as the Government was not held to also assess foreign emissions from exported petroleum.

 After losing in Norway’s courts, the Applicants turned to the European Court.

Ruling of the Court

The Court reiterates that Member States of the ECHR have a particular positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to provide protection against the harmful effects and risk caused by climate change. 

According to the Court, oil and gas exploration is a necessary legal and practical step before extraction. Granting exploration licenses therefore inherently carries the potential for future production and associated climate risks. The later relinquishment of licenses does not break this causal link, as even relinquished areas can be re-licensed. Hence, individuals have a right to be informed about environmental risks, which applies regardless of whether harm has yet occurred. Given that oil and gas extraction is Norway’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and that human-caused climate change threatens human rights, the Court concludes there is a sufficiently close link between the licensing of exploration and serious adverse effects on people’s lives, health, and well-being, warranting examination at the individual level.

Consequently, the Court held that environmental impact assessments (EIAs) must, at a minimum, quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions expected from a project — including both domestic and foreign combustion emissions. Authorities must also evaluate whether the project complies with national and international climate obligations, and there must be genuine public consultation early enough to influence the decision and prevent pollution at its source. 

Interestingly, the Court thereby refers to the obligations set out by other international courts, including the Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice of 23 July 2025, no. 187 (ICJ’s Advisory Opinion) – from which it follows that States have a binding obligation to protect the climate system under, amongst other things, human rights law.

Finally, the Court found that the 2016 process lacked a full climate assessment, as key issues such as exported emissions and ocean acidification were postponed. However, although the Norwegian government lacked to conduct a CCA at the exploration stage, the Court ultimately ruled that there was no violation of Article 8 ECHR because Norwegian law foresees in an explicit requirement that a CCA must be carried out at the production stage. Given these guarantees, the Court was satisfied that the procedure regarding the production stage would ensure a comprehensive climate assessment. This assessment must cover:

• All environmental impacts, both within the state’s territory and beyond it;

• Upstream and downstream emissions, including those from extraction, processing, transport, and use of the fuels;
• a public consultation. ;and
• Be consistent with the State’s international obligations, including those under the Paris Agreement and customary international law.

Broader legal context 

This case builds on the Court’s first climate judgment, i.e. ECtHR 9 April 2024, 53600/20 (Verrein KlimaSeniorinnen/Switzerland), in which the Court established that Article 8 ECHR enshrines a right for individuals to be effectively protected by the State against serious adverse effects on their life, health, well-being and quality of life caused by of climate change. Consequently, Article 8 ECHR obliges governments to take effective measures to meet climate targets and combat the harmful effects of climate change. In essence, the current judgment can be seen as an application of this positive obligation in a specific situation, i.e. the issuing of petroleum licenses without an CCA.

In addition, the Court’s judgments fit into a broader line of national climate law judgments, such as the Dutch Urgenda-case, the judgment of the Indian Supreme Court, and the ruling by South Korea’s constitutional court, from which, basically, follows that climate change affects human rights and the concerned States therefore must take action against climate change. Notably, the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion mentioned the role States in taking appropriate protection measures against GHG emissions that explicitly relate to: “fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies” (read here our more detailed assessment of this opinion). In that regard, the Court explicitly referred to the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, which confirmed that States have a duty to conduct climate-related assessments for industrial projects with potential transboundary environmental effects, using the best available science. 

Impact on businesses 

Whilst the Court did not find a violation of Article 8 ECHR, the reasoning of this judgment remains relevant in determining whether a State’s licensing process for industrial activities, in particular, is compatible with Article 8 ECHR in the context of addressing climate change.

Firstly, this case confirms a broader legal development of requiring a comprehensive environmental and climate change impact assessment for industrial activities. Consequently, each jurisdiction must determine whether its procedures for authorizing industrial activities comply with Article 8 ECHR, particularly regarding the assessment of their adverse climate impacts. 

Secondly, the Court confirms that States have a positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR, which affects the States industrial decisions, such as granting permits, loans, guarantees, or other stimulating rights.

Thirdly, the Court confirms that such assessments should consider the downstream effects of activities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. scope 3 emissions / combustion emissions), using the best available science. Notably, this obligation is also reflected in other ESG legislation, such as the CSRD/CSDDD (at the current stage, regardless of the EU's potential adoption of the Second Proposal of the Omnibus I Package, which contains certain material revisions). Moreover, this line of reasoning also appears in the Dutch appeal case of Shell v. Milieudefensie of 12 November 2024 (against which cassation proceedings are pending before the Dutch Supreme Court).