Norway: WWF v. Norway (Ministry of Energy), Judgment

On 13 February 2025 the Oslo District Court issued judgment in Stiftelsen WWF Verdens Naturfond v. Staten v/ Energidepartementet (Case No. 24-081980TVI-TOSL/04). The case concerned the validity of the Royal Decree of 12 April 2024 on the opening of an area on the Norwegian Continental Shelf for mineral activities (previously reported). WWF challenged whether the mandatory impact assessment prior to opening of new areas on the continental shelf for mineral activities met the substantive requirements under Section 2-2 of the Seabed Minerals Act, as interpreted by other domestic and international law, including Article 206 of UNCLOS and the precautionary principle. The Decree was also challenged for being based on materially incorrect facts. The Decree was not invalidated, although WWF have signalled they will appeal the decision. On law of the sea:

It has not been alleged that Norway has not fulfilled its reporting obligations under Article 205 of [UNCLOS], or that the obligation to assess the potential environmental impacts ‘as far as practicable’ extends beyond the obligation to conduct an impact assessment under Section 2-2 of the [Seabed Minerals Act].

WWF v. Ministry of Energy, Judgment p. 26 (machine translation)

Overall, the district court finds that Norwegian law interpreted in accordance with international and national law requires that both probable and possible, but not theoretical or constructed, environmental consequences of an opening decision must be ‘illuminated’ in an impact assessment prepared by the ministry before the government can decide on new areas opened for mineral activities [Section 2-2 of the Seabed Minerals Act]. International law requirements indicate that the verb ‘illuminate’ means that the probable and possible environmental consequences must both be identified, described and assessed.

The impact assessment is obliged to use all available knowledge and assessment methods. Depending on the circumstances, new scientific studies may also be necessary where the knowledge base falls short […] The international and EU law investigation requirement is also not absolute, but is limited by a reasonableness, materiality, probability and/or proportionality limitation that, in the end, is not found to deviate significantly in content from the domestic law requirements.

WWF v. Ministry of Energy, Judgment pp. 30-31 (machine translation)