NORWAY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Andreas Stang Lund, Per Conradi Andersen, Alexander Daae and Emilie Wilberg, Kvale Advokatfirma DA
At the same time, developments in court caseloads must be seen in light of the courts’ increasing use of mediation. A significant proportion of civil cases that are filed are now resolved through judicial mediation before a full merits hearing takes place. This means that the courts are increasingly functioning as forums for dispute resolution, not merely for adjudication by judgment. Therefore, the number of filed cases does not, in itself, provide a complete picture of the courts’ role, but must be understood in conjunction with changing procedural models and the growing institu- tionalisation of amicable settlement within the justice system. Climate Litigation: Growth in Scope and Procedural Cost Challenges Climate-related disputes are increasingly being brought before the Norwegian courts, in a variety of forms and involving the Norwegian state, private indi- viduals and commercial entities. The state has been sued in several instances – first in relation to the award of new oil production licences and later in connec- tion with decisions approving oil development and production projects, including on the basis that the environmental impact assessments were inadequate. At the same time, there has been a rise in litigation linked to environmental activism, where members of environmental organisations engage in protest actions – often involving civil disobedience – and where issues of freedom of expression and freedom of association come to the fore. Climate and environmental litigation reaching the Supreme Court Norway’s first climate lawsuit challenging domestic oil production was heard by the Supreme Court sitting in plenary in 2020 and concerned the validity of produc- tion licences awarded in the Barents Sea. Although the environmental organisations did not succeed, the case marked a clear shift in the courts’ approach to climate-related issues, and clarified important legal parameters for future litigation. In 2026, the Supreme Court, sitting in a Grand Cham- ber, will decide another climate case of major signifi- cance. This time, the question is whether the state’s approval of so-called PDO decisions (plans for devel- opment and operation) in the North Sea violates Nor-
way’s international obligations. A decisive difference from the earlier Barents Sea case is that the dispute concerns a much later stage in the process, where development and production are imminent. The Court of Appeal concluded that the climate effects of downstream combustion emissions had been nei- ther sufficiently assessed nor properly evaluated. The court found that the relevant approvals failed to meet the requirements of the EU Project Directive and Arti- cle 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore declared the approvals invalid. As a result, the environmental organisations succeeded in their principal claim. In late April 2026, an environmental case reached the Supreme Court, concerning the establishment of a subsea tailings disposal site in Førdefjorden in west- ern Norway. A mining company has been sued by two environmental organisations, with the state appearing as an intervening party. The case concerns permits for the extraction and processing of rutile, garnet and crushed stone, with associated disposal of min- ing waste in Førdefjorden. In 2022, the environmen- tal organisations brought proceedings alleging that the permit for subsea tailings disposal violated, inter alia, the EU Water Framework Directive. In short, they argue that the project’s alleged societal benefits are insufficient to outweigh the environmental harm, ren- dering the permits invalid. The environmental organisations were unsuccess- ful before the district court but prevailed in the court of appeal, which declared the permits invalid. More recently, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) has opened infringement proceedings against Norway and has indicated that the permits may be contrary to the Water Framework Directive. The case is now pending final determination before the Supreme Court. Litigation costs in climate cases, environmental organisations and the Aarhus Convention Climate litigation raises not only substantive and principled legal issues, but also important procedur- al questions. In particular, the allocation of litigation costs has become increasingly significant. Cost deci- sions may be decisive for which cases are brought before the courts, and also for who ultimately bears
438 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook