The core of the Greenpeace Nordic v. Norway ruling of 28 October 2025

The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) analysis in the Greenpeace Nordic v. Norway ruling of 28 October 2025 (the Ruling) centers on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), which protects the right to respect for private and family life. The ECtHR recognises that climate change poses serious risks to life, health and well-being. According to the ECtHR, Article 8 imposes a duty on States to protect individuals from these risks. The ECtHR found that this duty under Article 8 includes the procedural obligation to conduct an adequate, timely and comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) in good faith and based on the best available science before authorising a potentially dangerous activity that may be harmful to the right for individuals to effective protection from serious adverse effects of climate change (paras. 292 and 314-319 of the Ruling).

The ECtHR’s interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention is influenced by recent international developments. In this context, the ECtHR refers to the 2025 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ, see our earlier publication on this here) and the 2024 KlimaSeniorinnen ruling as relevant context (see our earlier publication on this here). These rulings are cited by the ECtHR because they affirm that States are under international legal obligations to assess climate impacts in a timely and science-based manner, and that Article 8 of the Convention entails positive duties to protect individuals from the serious effects of climate change.

The ECtHR’s core considerations: what does effective protection mean?

In the Greenpeace Nordic ruling, the ECtHR emphasises again that States have a positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to ensure effective protection for individuals against the adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being, and quality of life. This means that States are required to not only adopt regulations, but also apply them effectively in practice, based on the best available science. While States retain a wide margin of appreciation in the design and implementation of their climate policies, the imperative of climate protection must carry substantial weight when balancing competing interests. The ECtHR sets out that an adequate, timely, and comprehensive EIA is an essential procedural safeguard. This EIA standard applies with recent international opinions and rulings, including those from the ICJ and the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling (paras. 318-324 of the Ruling).

Application to Norway: deferred climate assessment and procedural safeguards

In the Norwegian context, the ECtHR accepts that a full EIA may be deferred to the production and development stage (PDO), provided there are sufficient safeguards for public participation, judicial review, and a comprehensive EIA before actual production begins of the new upstream fossil fuel projects. This is because Article 8 of the Convention imposes a procedural obligation on States to ensure “adequate, timely and comprehensive” environmental impact assessments for potentially dangerous activities. The ECtHR found that, as long as Norwegian law guarantees public participation and judicial review at the PDO stage, and the EIA is completed before production starts, these safeguards are sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention. In this case, the Norwegian authorities had postponed an EIA to a later stage. Although Norway’s initial EIA was limited, the ECtHR accepted that a comprehensive EIA is carried out at the production stage provided that this happens before actual production is authorised under the envisaged new fossil fuel projects. Because Norwegian law provides for public participation and judicial review at that stage, the ECtHR found no violation of Article 8 of the Convention (paras. 330-335 of the Ruling).

What does an “adequate, timely and comprehensive EIA” require in practise? 

In short, the ECtHR held that an EIA must:

  • Include not only direct GHG emissions from the project itself, but also downstream and exported emissions. This refers to the greenhouse gases released when oil and gas are eventually burned, the Scope 3 emissions (para. 319 of the Ruling). 
  • Be based on the best available science and cover the full scope of climate impacts. Failure to do so would undermine the State’s duty to protect human rights. This is an important clarification, as it acknowledges the global nature of climate impacts and rejects a purely territorial approach (paras. 318-319 and 363 of the Ruling).
  • Examine whether the proposed activity is compatible with the State’s obligations under national and international law to take effective measures against the adverse effects of climate change (paras. 319 and 324 of the Ruling).

The ECtHR ultimately found no violation of human rights because Norwegian law requires a comprehensive EIA and public participation before new upstream fossil fuel projects are authorised. The Ruling is relevant for climate litigation across Europe, as it underscores that States must conduct comprehensive, science-based EIAs – encompassing direct, downstream, and exported emissions – before authorising new upstream fossil fuel projects.

What is next?

The Dutch non-profit legal organisation Advocates for the Future has initiated a case against a production permit granted by the Dutch climate minister to the Italian energy company Eni for gas extraction in the North Sea. Advocates for the Future argues that the Netherlands should invest in sustainable energy, instead of new (upstream) gas production, and that issuing this permit is incompatible with the country’s legal obligations. Their objection builds on recent legal developments, including the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the ICJ, which emphasised that States must do their utmost to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, with higher expectations for developed countries (please refer to our earlier publication).

While legal challenges to new oil and gas permits are not new, Advocates for the Future has initiated a legal challenge at the stage of the production permit, prior to the EIA, thereby highlighting procedural aspects and climate compatibility considerations in the approval process for fossil fuel projects under Dutch law.

In addition, courts are increasingly shaping expectations for corporate climate accountability. In the Netherlands, this development is reflected in cases such as Milieudefensie v. Shell I (with the district court ruling in 2021 and the court of appeal ruling in 2024) and Shell II in 2025 and the ING case in 2025, where claims have evolved from broad obligations to targeted demands. International developments – including the ICJ’s advisory opinion and the ECtHR’s KlimaSeniorinnen and Greenpeace Nordic v. Norway judgments – further illustrate this shift by emphasising that States are expected to carry out due‑diligence assessments and comprehensive, science‑based EIAs of climate impacts. While the primary legal responsibility rests with States, recent aforementioned cases indicate that companies – particularly major emitters – may increasingly be expected to integrate comparable standards into their decision-making (please be referred to our trend report).

In Milieudefensie v. Shell I, Milieudefensie argued that Shell was obliged to reduce its scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions. The Court of Appeal rejected this claim, holding that the duty of care does not entail a specific reduction percentage for Shell (please be referred to our Shell I case analysis). In Shell II case, Milieudefensie now seeks to prohibit new upstream oil and gas projects altogether. The Court of Appeal in the Shell I case acknowledged that such upstream investments may create a lock‑in effect and could, in certain circumstances, conflict with Shell’s responsibility in the energy transition, but did not decide on this point because it fell outside the scope of the initial claim. The ECtHR’s Ruling might therefore could be relevant for Shell II case, as Milieudefensie now explicitly aims to halt the development of upstream activities on the basis of the reasoning in Shell I case.

Get in touch

Our experts are closely monitoring climate change litigation developments and potential liability and litigation risks in this respect. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us for more information.