In 2016, six young activists took a bold step. They, along with Young Friends of the Earth Norway and Greenpeace Nordic, challenged the Norwegian government in court over Arctic oil drilling. Their main argument? Approving more fossil fuel projects during a climate crisis goes against the Norwegian Constitution and basic human rights.
This case, known as the People vs. Arctic Oil, was groundbreaking. After years of hearings, the Supreme Court acknowledged the climate risks from oil drilling but ultimately allowed the licenses to stand, leaving the activists without options at home.
However, the struggle continued. The case moved to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which protects the rights of millions across Europe. For the first time, the court will consider whether a government’s expansion of oil and gas production infringes on rights to life, health, and a safe environment. The decision is expected on October 28.
The implications are huge. If the court rules in favor of the activists, it could set a precedent for how Europe handles fossil fuel projects. Governments may be required to consider climate impacts before approving any new drilling.
Burgeoning Legal Challenges
Meanwhile, Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth Norway have not backed down. They are currently challenging new oil and gas field approvals through the Borgarting Court of Appeal. A previous ruling found that Norway’s Ministry of Energy acted unlawfully by not assessing the climate impact of three major North Sea projects.
Recently, the EFTA Court clarified that governments must consider greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels when assessing environmental impacts. This ruling challenges the Norwegian government’s position that only the direct impacts of extraction need to be evaluated.
In a significant additional development, in July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed that nations have a legal responsibility to prevent climate damage from fossil fuel projects. Norway, being a major oil exporter, faces serious legal scrutiny for its actions. This opinion reinforces that continuing to expand fossil fuel projects can be unlawful, pressuring the Norwegian government to rethink its energy policies.
The Broader Impact
The journey that began in 2016 reflects a growing trend in climate litigation. Courts worldwide are increasingly holding governments accountable for the climate impact of their policies. This isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a matter of public concern. Many young activists and climate groups are rallying for more ambitious climate actions, creating social media movements that demand accountability and transparency.
What’s at Stake?
The upcoming decisions from both the ECtHR and Borgarting Court of Appeal could send ripples across Europe. If the courts rule against the Norwegian government, it would challenge how nations handle fossil fuel projects everywhere. It highlights the urgent need for governments to honestly assess the climate risks of their actions—prioritizing public safety over profit.
In this case, the stakes are not just legal; they’re also deeply connected to human rights and environmental justice. Climate change is already causing real damage to lives and communities. By putting these concerns front and center, the ECtHR has a chance to reshape how climate impacts are viewed in legal terms.
Moving Forward
The activism surrounding the People vs. Arctic Oil case has grown from a small group of passionate youths into a wider movement influencing European law. The outcome at the ECtHR and the Borgarting Court will be pivotal.
Regardless of the results, this case underscores that people can challenge their governments over climate issues. The legal landscape around climate accountability is shifting, demonstrating that persistent advocacy can lead to meaningful change.
For more information, check out the latest from Greenpeace Nordic.
