## Facts

- Norway awarded new petroleum production licenses in 2016 for previously unopened areas of the Barents Sea (the 23rd licensing round).
- Greenpeace Nordic Association and Nature and Youth (environmental NGOs) sued the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, seeking to invalidate the licensing decisions.
- Plaintiffs alleged the licenses would contribute to significant greenhouse-gas emissions and environmental harm, violating Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution (environmental right and state duty to safeguard it for present and future generations).
- The Oslo District Court (2018) held Article 112 creates an enforceable right that includes a right to a healthy climate, but ruled the challenged licenses did not violate Article 112 and accepted that downstream emissions from exported oil burned abroad need not be treated as part of the licensing legality assessment.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Borgarting Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 112 confers a judicially enforceable right and, if so, what standard of review applies to petroleum licensing decisions involving climate policy.
2. Whether the Article 112 assessment for awarding petroleum licenses must account for downstream, foreign combustion emissions from exported Norwegian oil and gas.
3. Whether the licensing process and environmental impact assessment obligations satisfied Article 112’s requirement that the State implement measures to protect environmental rights.
4. Whether the 23rd licensing round, on the facts, crossed the constitutional threshold and required setting aside the licenses.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the State and rejected the NGOs’ challenge to the 23rd licensing round.
- The court accepted that Article 112 is justiciable and may be invoked in court, including in climate-related claims.
- Applying a restrained review, the court held the political branches retain broad discretion in balancing climate and environmental concerns against other societal interests in energy policy.
- The court did not require invalidation of the licenses based on claimed deficiencies at the licensing stage, reasoning that Norway’s petroleum regime contains multiple decision points at which impacts can be assessed.
- The court largely agreed that, at the licensing stage, Article 112 did not require treating downstream foreign combustion emissions as determinative for legality.

## Legal Principles

- A constitutional environmental-rights provision can be justiciable while still allowing substantial political discretion over complex climate and energy policy choices.
- Courts may intervene in environmental-rights disputes only when governmental action falls outside constitutional limits (a high threshold under a deferential standard of review).
- Article 112 can be read as imposing framework and procedural duties (maintaining an adequate regulatory system and assessment processes) rather than mandating judicial control of individual licensing outcomes.
- In evaluating petroleum licensing, domestic constitutional obligations may be interpreted in light of international emissions-accounting structures, limiting the weight given to downstream foreign combustion emissions at the initial licensing stage.
- A licensing decision will not be set aside absent a showing that the regulatory framework and applied measures are so inadequate as to breach the constitutional minimum.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that Article 112 provides a judicially enforceable environmental right, including climate-related interests, but concluded that Norway’s Barents Sea licensing decisions fell within the political branches’ discretion and were not shown to violate the constitutional standard.


Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n v. Ministry of Petrol. & Energy, No. 18-060499ASD-BORG/03 (Borgarting Ct. App. 2020)