Now comes the Supreme Court ruling on the climate lawsuit – NRK Norway – Summary of news from different parts of the country

Justice Høgetveit Berg reads the verdict in the Supreme Court:

• The Supreme Court believes that the environmental section of the constitution cannot be used as the environmental organizations wanted. The court believes that the section is a safety valve, which can be used if the Storting has seriously neglected its functions.

• The Supreme Court says that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has not been violated in the case.

• The state has implemented a number of specific and general climate measures that argue that they have not neglected their duty under section 112.

• The Supreme Court believes that Norway is not responsible for the emissions of Norwegian oil that is incinerated in other countries.

• The question of increased emissions will only be possible to decide if commercial discoveries are made.

Years of saga

It’s a saga of years in court that will now have its final conclusion, or maybe it’s just the beginning of something else.

In 2016, Nature and Youth and Greenpeace sued the Norwegian state. They believe that the authorities violated Article 112 of the Constitution in the same year by granting 10 new licenses to search for oil and gas in the North Sea areas.

The main investment was the Southeast Barents Sea, the area that was opened for oil activities in 2013. Other permits were granted in the South Barents Sea, which has had oil activities since the late 1970s.

The Supreme Court has now ruled on the validity of these production licenses. Whether they are in conflict with the environmental section or if the opening of the southeast of the Barents Sea in 2013 was little studied.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the latter, the state must re-examine.

If the court determines that the permits are unconstitutional, it can have consequences far beyond this case.

The sentence is only binding for the ten relevant fields. But it will provide guidelines for other new topics related to the environmental section.

Before the verdict was delivered in the Supreme Court, the leader of Natur og Ungdom stated that she has a lot of faith that the verdict can go in her favor.

In November, shortly before the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the climate lawsuit, the government opened up more new oil exploration in the Barents Sea in the 25th round of licenses.

Human rights violations

With the Norwegian Institute of Human Rights (NIM) as a witness, environmental organizations argued that the 23rd round of licenses is a violation of human rights.

They believe that a policy expanding oil and gas activities in Norway is contrary to the protection of life and the protection of family life of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Article 2 and Article 8).

The State, for its part, has affirmed that the organizations are not protected by the ECHR, but that look for after all, oil and gas cannot be said to pose a sufficient threat to constitute a violation of human rights.

The state has always insisted that licensing rounds are a political matter decided by elected politicians, not the courts. The state believes that the environmental section deals with general and overriding objectives and principles, and does not grant specific rights to each individual.

In the Supreme Court, the state rejected that the environmental clause can limit Norwegian oil and that the Paris Agreement imposes some legal requirements.

– These are not the bad authorities who are going to extract oil to harm people. It is the authorities who weigh basic social considerations. More than 90 percent of the Storting is behind Norwegian oil policy, government lawyer Fredrik Sejersted said in the Supreme Court.

Accused the status of procedural errors

The plaintiffs also accused the State of procedural errors in relation to the opening of the south-eastern Barents Sea to oil and gas activities in 2013.

This includes a profitability calculation from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, which the Petroleum Ministry decided not to send to the Storting. It showed that exploration for oil in the Barents Sea in the southeast could in all probability lead to a staggering deficit.

The state denied that the report has any significance for climate demand.

After NRK released the case, the Storting’s constitution and control committee decided to open a control case to find out who knew what about the controversial report.

Lost in District Court and Court of Appeal

Environmental organizations believe that oil licenses in the Barents Sea will lead to increased emissions and that this is not compatible with the Paris Agreement.

The environmental section establishes that everyone has the right to an environment that guarantees health and to a nature where productive capacity and diversity are preserved. And that it is the responsibility of the State to guarantee this right also for posterity.

But environmental organizations lost the case in both the District Court and the Court of Appeal.

However, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs that the environmental section should be considered a provision of law. The Court of Appeal gave the plaintiffs another victory: Norway is responsible for Norwegian oil emissions outside of Norway as well.