Norway

CRIN would like to express our profound gratitude to our external reviewer for their insightful comments on a draft of this report. CRIN also sent a draft version to the State for feedback and comments received were taken into account in finalising the report. Any errors or inaccuracies remaining in the report are CRIN’s.

This report is provided for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. CRIN does not accept liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any person using or relying on information in this report. CRIN encourages personal and educational use of this publication and grants permission for its reproduction in this capacity where proper credit is given in good faith.

All CRIN content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 licence. No material produced by CRIN may be modified unless consent is given in writing. No material produced by CRIN may be re-used for commercial gain unless consent is given in writing.

I. National legal protections

A. Are environmental rights protected within the national constitution?

Article 112 of the Constitution, as amended in 2014, provides that: “Every person has the right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained”. This Article takes into account future generations, requiring that “Natural resources shall be managed on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations which will safeguard this right for future generations as well”.1

The 1992 version of the Norwegian Constitution, in Article 110(b), already referred to this right in nearly identical terms. However, the State’s duty to implement this right is now clearer. “Shall take measures” in the final paragraph of the 2014 version replaces the language “shall issue further provisions” in the 1992 version.2

Additionally, Article 104 codifies the rights of children, including the right to respect for their human dignity, the right to be heard, best interests as a primary consideration and the right to protection of their personal integrity. It also places an obligation on the authorities to create conditions enabling the child’s development, including to ensure the necessary standard of health.

Article 92, the first article in the Human Rights Chapter of the Constitution, codifies the Norwegian government’s duty to respect constitutional and treaty-based human rights obligations: “The authorities of the State shall respect and ensure human rights as they are expressed in this Constitution and in the treaties of human rights that are binding on Norway.” The Human Rights Act of 1999 codified the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (“ICESC”), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (“ICCPR”), incorporating these treaties into Norwegian law.3 Although no international convention has established an “individual right to an environment or climate”,4 future treaties could codify this right and influence the development of Norwegian jurisprudence.

Norway ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1991, and incorporated it into Norwegian law in 2003 through the Human Rights Act (See Section II. C), with prevalence over domestic legislation in case of conflict.5

B. Have constitutional rights protections been applied by national courts with regards to environmental issues?

The People v. Arctic Oil appears to be the first and only case in which Norwegian courts have interpreted and applied constitutional rights relating to a healthy environment, and the scope and enforceability of Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution.6

In that case, Greenpeace Norway and Nature & Youth (an environmentalist youth organisation) sought to invalidate the government’s award of oil production licenses to Arctic Oil, arguing that the licenses contravened Norwegians’ right to a healthy environment under the recently revised Article 112.7 Greenpeace and Nature & Youth argued that the oil production licenses imperiled this substantive right because the emissions resulting from the project would irreversibly damage the environment and be incompatible with Norway’s obligations under the Paris Agreement to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius.8 In opposition, the Government of Norway contended that Article 112 did not grant substantive, enforceable rights – it only compelled the government to “take positive measures, not to abstain from measures” to effectuate a healthy environment – and argued that environmental harm had not resulted from the licenses, so that the plaintiffs lacked standing.9

The District Court rejected Greenpeace Norway and Nature & Youth’s challenge, holding that Article 112 did not grant substantive rights and that there were no procedural errors in the course of awarding the licenses.10 Greenpeace Norway and Nature & Youth appealed.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the District Court, holding that Article 112 of the Constitution provides a substantive right to a healthy environment and found a cause of action with respect to governmental violations of that right.11 The Court further held that Article 112 applies to all environmental harm cited by the appellants, namely, local environmental harm, greenhouse gas emissions that occur in connection with the production of petroleum, and greenhouse gas emissions that occur in connection with its combustion.12

Assuming that “fulfilment of the targets in the Paris Agreement requires drastic cuts in emissions”, the Court found that “[t]otal reported national contributions are too low to fulfil the Paris Agreement's targets, and therefore a progression must occur in the contributions”.13 However, the Court of Appeal ultimately agreed with the District Court insofar as it concluded that the production licenses did not violate Article 112 because they would not necessarily increase Norway’s total national emissions such that Norway would violate its obligations under the Paris Agreement or otherwise jeopardise Norwegians’ right to a healthy environment.14

Additionally, the Court of Appeal concluded that granting the licenses did not in itself violate either Article 93 (guaranteeing the right to life) or Article 102 (guaranteeing the right to privacy and personal integrity) of the Norwegian Constitution (or the corresponding Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention for Human Rights). The Court of Appeal simply noted that “the text [of these provisions] is too general” to bear on this case.15

Greenpeace Norway and Nature & Youth appealed to the Supreme Court of Norway. On December 22, 2020, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the plenary and issued a narrow ruling in favour of the Norwegian government, focusing on the scope of the protections afforded by Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution and its interplay with constitutional separation of powers.16

The Supreme Court found that Article 112 conferred standing and substantive rights to individuals “when addressing environmental problems for which legislators have not taken a position,”17 but generally not where the legislature had acted (in this case, by approving the granting of licenses), as the purpose of Article 112 was to “provide guidelines for legislation.”18 The Court noted that the preparatory works for Article 110b, the prior iteration of Article 112, made it “clear that the provision did not establish a general substantive right,”19 such as that for which appellants argued. Finding that “when the Storting [the Norwegian legislature] has considered a matter,” Article 112 must be read “as a safety valve,” and the Court noted that it would only set aside legislative decisions if the legislature had “grossly disregarded its duties under Article 112”.20 For administrative decisions, the Article will serve both as an element of statutory interpretation and a consideration in the exercise of administrative discretion, but the appropriate level of review for such decisions was considered to be beyond the scope of the case.21

The Supreme Court further addressed the exterritorial application of Article 112. It noted that, although Article 112 “does not generally protect against acts and effects outside the Kingdom of Norway,” it imposes upon the government a duty of care to protect its citizens against harm within Norway arising from “activities abroad that Norwegian authorities have directly influenced or could take measures against,” such as the “combustion abroad of oil or gas produced in Norway, when it leads to harm in Norway as well.”22

However, the Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ argument that Article 112 allowed courts to impose emission reduction requirements on the government when reviewing an individual administrative decision. Accepting this argument would entail “subjecting to review key parts of Norwegian petroleum policy,” and violate the separation of powers.23 The Court instead found that “it must be accepted that the Storting and the Government base Norwegian climate policy on the division of responsibilities that results from international agreements”. These agreements provide that “each state is responsible for combustion that occurs on its own territory”, and Norway has already implemented significant measures to reduce domestic emissions and limit environmental harm.24

The Supreme Court was divided on the question of whether the environmental impact assessments preceding licensing were adequate, with an 11-4 majority finding them sufficient. The primary question was whether there was an adequate investigation of the climate effects of future production, which were assessed solely on emissions related to production.25 Though the assessments failed to account for emissions related to combustion, the Court found it persuasive that no commercially viable discoveries had yet been made, and that future production would require an additional impact statement re-assessing the scope of emissions.26 Further, the Court emphasised that the decision to open the field should be assessed in light of “the Government’s overarching objectives” with respect to climate policy.27 Additionally, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that granting the licenses violated neither Articles 93 or 102 of the Constitution nor articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to private and family life) of the ECHR.28

C. Has the concept of intergenerational equity been applied within national courts? If yes, in what circumstances?

As outlined in part A, Article 112 of Norway’s Constitution provides for the right to a healthy environment for “future generations.” The only national court to have considered the concept of intergenerational equity is the Court of Appeal in The People v. Arctic Oil litigation.29 However, in its analysis of Article 112, the Court of Appeal only mentioned the intergenerational component in passing, briefly referring to considerations for future generations, and stating that “the fact that the right is to be safeguarded across generations has an aspect of the concern for democracy, in that future generations cannot influence today’s political processes.”30 This part of the opinion did not bear on the Court’s holding that Article 112 grants a substantive right that may be reviewed before the courts.

The Supreme Court made no mention of intergenerational equity in its analysis of Article 112 in Artic Oil, confining itself to a discussion of the ecological impacts that climate change would have in the future.31

Article 92 of Norway’s Constitution provides that Norway “shall respect and ensure human rights … in treaties of human rights that are binding on Norway.” Accordingly, Article 92 incorporates a number of international human rights treaties that can be interpreted to refer to the concept of intergenerational equity.32 However, the concept of intergenerational equity under these conventions does not appear to have been considered by Norwegian courts to date.

D. What legislation is in place to regulate environmental protection? Are there any proposals for legal reforms currently under review in the national legislature?

  • The Outdoor Recreation Act (1957)33: Protects the public’s opportunity for outdoor recreation and safeguards the public’s right of access to and passage through uncultivated land
  • The Nature Conservation Act (1970)34: Provides for the protection of the environment and preserves wildlands
  • The Product Control Act (1976)35: Regulates consumer products such that they do not cause undue “environmental disturbance” through “[in]effective energy use in products”
  • The Cultural Heritage Act (1978)36: Protects “cultural environments in all their variety and detail”
  • The Pollution Control Act (1981)37: Enables regulations that “protect the outdoor environment against pollution,” “reduce existing pollution,” and “reduce the quantity of waste”
  • The CO2 Tax Act on Petroleum Activities (1990)38: Regulates carbon emissions produced by the petroleum industry
  • The Energy Act (1991)39: Empowers the government to regulate energy production and infrastructure
  • The Gene Technology Act (1993)40: Promotes “sustainable development … without adverse effects on … the environment” through the use of genetically modified organisms
  • The Land Act (1995)41 : Balances forest cultivation with preservation such that land resources are consumed in a manner “beneficial to society” and to “the agricultural sector”
  • The Petroleum Act (1996)42 : Provides the Norwegian state with proprietary rights to subsea petroleum deposits on the Norwegian continental shelf
  • The Svalbard Environmental Protection Act (2001)43: Preserves as wilderness the Svalbard area
  • The Environmental Information Act (2003)44: Incorporates the Aarhus Convention into Norwegian law and ensures public access to “environmental information” for the purposes of environmental protection, public health, and better informing government and business decisions
  • The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Act (2004)45: Regulates greenhouse gas emissions “in a cost-effective manner” through a cap-and-trade framework
  • The Forestry Act (2005)46: Regulates “sustainable management of [Norway’s] forestry resources”
  • The Planning and Building Act (2008)47: Promotes “sustainable development in the best interest of individuals, society and future generations”
  • The Nature Diversity Act (2009)48: Protects ecological balance and biodiversity and provides basis for human recreation in uncultivated land
  • The Offshore Energy Act (2010)49: Promotes offshore wind energy production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
  • The Electricity Certificates Act (2011): Establishes a scheme of financial incentives for renewable energy production, including a cap-and-trade component
  • The Natural Damage Compensation Act (2017)50: Creates a government fund to compensate victims of natural disasters
  • The Climate Change Act (2017)51: Implements benchmarks for Norway’s emissions targets under the Paris Climate Accord

Norway recently expanded its emissions reduction goals under the Paris Climate Accord. As of July 2020, Norway pledged to expand its emissions reduction goals from 50 percent towards 55 percent.52 Accordingly, Norway is likely to pass new legislation or amend the Climate Change Act to give effect to these goals. As part of its recently announced climate action plan, the government signaled on January 8, 2021 that it will soon pass legislation to increase taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and “introduce requirements to use low- and zero-emission technology.”53

E. Is there any specific national policy addressing childhood exposure to toxic substances? If so, what is considered a safe level of exposure and what is the process for determining safe levels of exposure?

There do not appear to be specific national policies regarding toxic substance thresholds for children. However, Report No. 14 to the Storting (2006-2007), a white paper providing a basis for future policy, identified a number of toxic chemical policies that could be adopted to avoid chemicals’ deleterious effects on “our children and grandchildren.” The Report refers to the EU’s REACH Regulation, which has an impact on Norway as a member of the European Economic Area, and requires companies to notify the EU when they import more than one ton of chemical substances in a year. The Report also refers to a number of environmental bills identified above in part D, which regulate industry to promote a safer environment.54

F. Is the country equipped with pollutant release and transfer registers? If yes, do these registers take into account child specific factors regarding the substances for which data is gathered and the type of data generated?

Norway maintains a Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR). Run by the Norwegian Environment Agency, the PRTR “includes emission figures from companies’ annual reports to the authorities,” as well as government calculations for “emission sources that are not subject to a reporting obligation.” The PRTR does not include child-specific factors. However, the PRTR breaks down pollutant data into the following categories: (i) wastewater treatment plants, (ii) landfills, (iii) households, (iv) industry, (v) agriculture, (vi) offshore petroleum industry, (vii) products, and (viii) transport. These categories provide generalised, national emission data for specific pollutants within each category.55

G. Does the State assert extra-territorial jurisdiction for any environmental issues?

In limited circumstances, Norway asserts extra-territorial jurisdiction for environmental issues. The scope of the Norwegian courts’ extra-territorial jurisdiction varies depending upon the nature of the case.

Criminal cases

The recently amended Norwegian Penal Code defines its geographical scope of application in Sections 4 to 6. Section 4 provides that the Penal Code applies to acts committed in Norway or in areas under Norwegian jurisdiction. Further, Section 4 also makes the Penal Code applicable to acts committed: (a) on installations for exploitation and storage of submarine natural resources on the continental shelf and elsewhere; (b) in the Exclusive Economic Zone for acts harming interests meant to be protected by Norwegian jurisdiction; and (c) on Norwegian vessels, aircraft and drilling platforms.56

Section 5 extends Norway’s criminal jurisdiction to certain enumerated crimes, including serious environmental crimes if they may be defined as terrorist acts, committed abroad by citizens and people domiciled in Norway and other Nordic countries. Further, Section 5 applies to any person, regardless of origin, who commits an act carrying a maximum penalty of six or more years of imprisonment against a Norwegian national or domiciliary.

Section 6, which discusses special grounds for prosecution, applies the legislation “to acts that Norway has a right or an obligation to prosecute pursuant to agreements with foreign States or otherwise pursuant to international law”. Relevant international agreements include the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78),57 the Norwegian Ship Safety and Security Act of 2007,58 and the Nordic Environmental Protection Convention (NEPC), which provides reciprocal access to domestic legal remedies for residents of those states party to the treaty.59

Therefore, in certain limited instances, the environmental provisions of the Penal Code apply to actions committed abroad. Serious environmental crimes, defined in Section 240 of the Penal Code, all have penalties of at least six years of imprisonment and in the event that any of these crimes are directed against a national or domiciliary of Norway, Norway has extra-territorial jurisdiction to prosecute pursuant to Section 5 of the Penal Code. Sections 239-240 fall within the definition of Terrorist Acts laid out in Chapter 18 provided they are committed with terrorist intent. Under Section 5 of the Penal Code, there is extraterritorial jurisdiction for Terrorist Acts committed by a Norwegian, a domiciliary, on behalf of a Norwegian-registered enterprise or for such acts committed by someone who after the act becomes a Norwegian national or becomes domiciled in Norway.

Administrative Law

Administrative agencies in Norway derive their authority from their statutory mandate and, unless otherwise authorised, all such agencies are subject to the Public Administration Act. This act provides no information regarding the jurisdictional scope of the Norwegian administrative authorities.60 Article 4 of the NEPC requires each member state to appoint a supervisory authority entrusted to safeguard its interests “insofar as regards nuisances arising out of environmentally harmful activities in another Contracting State.” The supervisory authorities of any party may institute proceedings before the “competent Court or Administrative Authority” of another contracting State.

Civil law

The Act on Mediation and Trial in Civil Disputes (“Disputes Act”) and the Lugano Convention and its protocols both provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction in civil cases in limited circumstances. In practice, we have not been able to locate any precedents involving the extra-territorial assertion of jurisdiction by Norway relating to environmental issues.

Civil cases in Norway are subject to the rules contained in the Disputes Act, which applies “subject to such limitations as are recognised in international law or stipulated in any agreement with a foreign state.”61 The Disputes Act allows international disputes to be litigated in Norway provided “the facts of the case have a sufficiently strong connection to Norway.”62 In tort suits, a claimant may bring action either “in the place where the damage originated or where its effect occurred or may occur.”63 The Disputes Act may therefore provide a legal basis for the jurisdiction of Norwegian courts over environmental torts committed abroad, provided they have an effect in Norway. Additionally, the parties to a lawsuit may agree upon a venue that excludes or supplements the venue requirements in Section 4-5, though any agreement to expand or limit the jurisdiction of Norwegian courts must be in writing.

Additionally, Norway has codified the Lugano Convention and its protocols. This Convention limits the extraterritorial application of Norwegian tort law, but requires the recognition and enforcement of Norwegian tort judgments, subject to enumerated exceptions, in other States that are parties to the convention.64 Article 5 of the Convention provides that a person domiciled in any State bound by the Convention may be sued in matters relating to tort in Norwegian courts provided Norway is “the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.” Article 34 allows states to disregard foreign State judgments if they are contrary to public policy or “given in default of appearance,” but Article 36 precludes substantive review of a foreign judgment. Further, under Article 38 a judgment enforceable in Norway “shall be enforced in another State bound by this Convention when,” any interested party applies to have it declared enforceable there.

 
 

II. Accessing courts

A. How can environmental cases be brought before national courts?

The Norwegian court system consists of district courts, courts of appeal and a Supreme Court, all of which have general subject-matter jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters, and have competence to review administrative acts and the constitutionality of State action.65 Norway does not have any specialised environmental courts; environmental cases are decided by the courts of general jurisdiction mentioned above.66

Much governmental enforcement of environmental regulations takes place through administrative action, though there are also applicable criminal provisions. Many environmental laws in Norway also provide civil tort recourse for impacted private parties, including organisations. As discussed in greater detail below, district courts serve as courts of first instance for both civil and criminal environmental actions in addition to reviewing administrative decisions. The following section provides an overview of (1) administrative decision-making and judicial review; (2) the role of district courts as courts of first instance of general jurisdiction; (3) appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Administrative decision-making and judicial review

The procedural requirements for administrative decision-making are detailed in the Public Administration Act. Any decision made by an administrative authority pursuant to the Act may be reviewed first by a superior administrative body that may or may not be specialised in environmental law.67 Such decisions range from levying fines to granting licenses. For example, “decisions under the Pollution Control Act made by the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority are appealed to the Ministry of the Environment; decisions made by county governors are appealable to the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority; and decisions made by municipalities are appealed to the municipality or city council”68 or to the county governor.

Judicial review of final administrative decisions is undertaken by courts of general jurisdiction, with the district court as the court of first instance.69

Generally, administrative decisions may only be reviewed by the court for procedural or legal error and invalidity. The standard of review applied for questions of validity depends on the statute implicated, with courts conducting more substantive review of “decisions that shall be made if certain statutory or legally binding conditions are met”. If, however, the law “exclusively entrusts” discretion to the administrative body in question, the courts will conduct a more limited review.70 In discretionary cases implicating the environment, Norwegian courts often limit their review “to procedural errors or abuse of power.”71

District courts (first instance courts of general jurisdiction)

The district courts are responsible for reviewing administrative decisions, in addition to being courts of first instance for all civil, criminal, and constitutional cases.72 Relevant causes of action include, among others, (i) violations of Article 112 of the Constitution, which the Supreme Court in Arctic Oil confirmed grants a limited private right of action against State actors;73 (ii) environmental crimes, such as those found in Sections 239-241 of the Norwegian Penal Code; (iii) review of administrative offenses, such as violations of the Pollution Control Act; and (iv) civil tort causes of action such as those found in the Pollution Control Act.74

Additionally, criminal cases in district courts may be brought either by a public prosecutor or, subject to certain limitations, by a private citizen.75 Chapter 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which describes the prosecuting authority, indicates that decisions of the prosecuting authority may be appealed both by citizens and administrative bodies with legal interest in the complaint. Further, pursuant to Chapter 28 and 29 of the Act, aggrieved parties may bring private prosecutions for criminal acts not prosecuted by public authorities. Alternatively, aggrieved parties may bring civil complaints in conjunction with existing state-led criminal prosecutions.

District Courts also serve as courts of first instance for class-action suits. Chapter 35 of the Disputes Act defines class actions as “an action that is brought by or directed against a class on an identical or substantially similar factual and legal basis”. District Courts must approve the class and decide the scope of the class. Subject to court approval, class actions may be brought by any person within the class or an organisation “provided that the action falls within its purpose and normal scope pursuant to Section 1-4”.76 Additionally, the District Court may segregate issues that apply only to certain members of the class.

Superior court review: Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court

Judgments of the district courts are appealable to the Courts of Appeal, subject to the Courts of Appeal granting leave if the district court judgment is for monetary damages and the amount in dispute is less than NOK 125 000 (approx. US$ ≈ $14,800). Appeal to the Supreme Court is always subject to it granting leave. The Supreme Court may only grant leave if the appeal against a judgment concerns issues with significance beyond the scope of the case or if it is important for other reasons that the case be determined by the Supreme Court. The ordinary time limit for bringing appeals against judgments and rulings is one month.77

B. What rules of standing apply in environmental cases?

Norway provides broad standing under both the Public Administration Act and the Disputes Act. The Public Administration Act, which governs administrative proceedings, defines parties as those “to whom a decision is directed or whom the case otherwise directly concerns”.78 A wider range of actors, including organisations or others, have a right to appeal administrative decisions to a superior administrative body provided they have a legal interest in the case,79 which is interpreted to imply the same requirements as those for bringing a case to court.

In civil cases, Section 1-3 of the Disputes Act requires plaintiffs to present a claim that, based on both connection and relevance, “demonstrate a genuine need” to have the claim decided against the defendant. The Disputes Act explicitly addresses the standing of Non-Governmental Organisations (“NGOs”), granting them standing as long as they fulfill the conditions in Section 1-3, provided the issue at stake in the case falls within the general objective of the organisation and the NGO was not established solely for the purpose of gaining access to the court.80

Generally, an environmental NGO would be able to bring a case related to environmental harm. In the Alta case, the Norwegian Supreme Court recognised the legal standing of an NGO that brought an action to stop the construction of a dam that would not have affected the NGO or its members directly.81

C. Do these rules of standing differ when children are the complainants and if so in what way?

Under the Dispute Act 2005, persons under the age of 18 only have procedural capacity (the capacity to act on behalf of oneself in a lawsuit, including the capacity to bring an action) if provided by statute. Under the Civil Procedure Act, a child may be a party to a civil case, but may not normally conduct legal proceedings themselves. Civil actions on behalf of children must be filed by their legal guardian (i.e. parent or other person with parental responsibility). Under the Public Administration Act, children must be represented by their guardian, or a representative appointed by the guardian in administrative law cases, except in cases concerning alternative care where children may act on their own from the age of 15. In cases of criminal acts, an application for prosecution from the aggrieved person is no longer a requirement. In principle, all such acts are to be prosecuted. For crimes with a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment, the prosecutor may choose not to prosecute if the public interest does not call for it. Thus, there is no longer a need for particular rules concerning this issue for children as victims. Regarding other rights, if the aggrieved person is under the age of 18, their rights are exercised by their guardian. However, children over 15 years may choose to exercise their rights themselves at any time.82

Article 104 of the Constitution guarantees the rights of the child. The Norwegian legislature appointed a human rights commission to prepare the inclusion of a new chapter on human rights in the Constitution, for adoption in 2014. Its report provides insight into the intended interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 104. The Commission considered that children’s development should not be formulated as a right to be litigated in court. Instead, Article 104 places an obligation on the authorities to create conditions that facilitate the child’s development. In contrast, the second part of the same sentence places an affirmative obligation on the state to ensure the necessary standard of living and of health, that, in the Commission’s view, could likely be litigated. Article 98, which is not specific to children, strengthens Article 104: “All people are equal under the law. No human being must be subject to unfair or disproportionate differential treatment.” Read in conjunction with those rights guaranteed in Article 104, Article 98 effectively precludes discrimination against children.83

The Supreme Court considered that it is not possible under Norwegian law to grant a declaratory judgement for a breach of a provision of the CRC because the Convention did not contain an explicit obligation to provide an effective remedy for breaches.84

D. What is the burden and standard of proof for allegations of personal injury as a result of toxic exposure?

We have been unable to locate any regulations, statutes or case law specifically relating to toxic exposure. Generally, in a civil lawsuit, the Disputes Act provides that the claimant in an action bears the burden of proof, which it must meet by a preponderance of the evidence. While the burden of proof would initially lay with the claimant, it may shift based upon the argument offered.85

Depending on the type of lawsuit, the burden and/or standard of proof can shift. For example, in a civil suit, if toxic exposure came from a product, the Product Liability Act would govern. This could result in strict liability.86

In a criminal context, the burden of proof rests on the prosecutor. In criminal trials, there is a higher standard of proof with regard to questions of guilt than in civil cases. This standard of proof is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.87

E. What limitation periods apply in environmental cases?

The Public Administration Act governs the limitation period for administrative appeals. Section 29 of the Act requires appeals to be lodged within three weeks from either “the date on which notification of the administrative decision has reached the party concerned,” or the date the decision was published.

The law that governs limitation periods for civil cases is the 1979 Limitation Act.88 The general limitation on civil claims is three years.89 This period begins on the earliest date that the claimant is entitled to demand relief.90 Concerning damages, the time period starts when the injured party knows or should have known they have been injured. In any event, even if the claimant has known or should have known about the injury for less than three years, the claim will be time-barred if the basis for the defendant’s liability occurred more than 20 years prior to the claim being brought. However, for cases of injury to a person, the latter statute of limitations does not apply if the injured person was under 18 years at the time of the injury, provided the person liable knew or should have known that the act performed could imply a risk of death or serious harm.91

The Penal Code governs limitation periods for criminal liability. The statute of limitations for crimes is based upon the maximum statutory penalty. Serious environmental crimes, which have a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, correspondingly have a 15-year statute of limitations. Conspiracy to commit such crimes, which has a maximum penalty of 6 years imprisonment, has a 10-year statute of limitations.92 The same applies to less serious environmental crimes.

F. Is legal aid available in environmental cases? If so, under what circumstances?

Norway does not have a history of granting legal aid for environmental cases. The requirements for legal aid are set out in the Act Relating to Legal Aid (“Legal Aid Act”) which relates to all types of cases (civil, administrative, constitutional or criminal). In order to qualify for legal aid, the claimant’s income and assets must generally not exceed certain thresholds. A person must earn less than NOK 246,000 (≈ US $28,700) in gross income annually, or if in a household, the household must earn below NOK 369,000 (≈ US $43,100). Additionally, the person must have net assets below NOK 100,000 (≈ US $11,700).93

If these financial eligibility criteria are not fulfilled, legal aid can be granted only under exceptions set forth in sections 11 and 16 of the Legal Aid Act, which cover certain types of cases. As most relevant to the present inquiry, these include child welfare cases and claims for compensation from the perpetrator of a criminal offense.94 Child welfare could arguably be broadly relevant in environmental cases (especially those brought by/on behalf of children), but existing precedents tend to use this notion in family law or domestic abuse and neglect matters.

In other situations that have not been explicitly spelled out in the Legal Aid Act, legal aid has been granted in matters that are deemed to be of crucial importance to the welfare of the person concerned, even where the claimant did not meet the financial eligibility criteria. As most relevant to the present inquiry, these include personal injury cases and complaints/appeals concerning social security benefits.95 In cases falling outside of those areas, legal aid will normally not be granted. However, a county governor or a court has the discretion to grant legal aid in any legal matter.

 
 

III. Remedies

A. What remedies are courts empowered to impose in environmental cases?

Norwegian courts can issue both injunctive relief and monetary damages.96 The majority of private claimants seek monetary damages. Monetary damages are generally a measure of compensatory damages, which in the context of environmental harm would be damages as to provide for the restoration or repair of the damage caused.97 Damages or injunctive relief may also be sought on the basis of Constitutional claims arising under Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution.98 While the same remedies are available in Constitutional cases as in statutory cases, namely damages or injunctive relief, such cases can have broader effect stemming from their interpretation of the environmental protection granted by Article 112 (see Section III. B.).

Separately, criminal enforcement plays a surprisingly significant role in environmental protection in Norway. Over a ten-year period, environmental interests were identified in approximately 0.4 percent of civil cases before Norwegian courts while they were identified in 0.7 percent of criminal cases before the same courts. Enforcement authorities may impose compensatory damages, fines, and terms of imprisonment on parties found in breach of environmental protections.99

Parties may also seek modification or reversal of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions may be appealed to superior administrative authorities, or the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration, or may be directly contested in the courts. Judicial review may result in a grant of injunctive relief, but neither judicial nor administrative procedures have automatic suspensive effect. Agencies do, however, have discretion to suspend action while a court or agency review process is ongoing. If a party requests a delay in implementation of an administrative action, a decision must be made as soon as possible and grounds for any refusal of that request must be provided.100

B. What remedies have courts ordered in environmental cases to date?

A 2009 study found that the majority of environmental cases seek monetary damages.101 For an example of such damages, in 2017 the Supreme Court held a waste management company liable for its abandonment of substantial amounts of electrical and electronic waste in violation of Waste Regulations. The company was held responsible for damages to the surrounding general public until the successful and safe removal of the waste was completed in accordance with environmental regulations.102 In another case, an individual landowner was held liable for repayment of authorities’ costs to clean up and restore a heavily contaminated plot of land.103

A minority of cases seek injunctive relief.104 In one such case, the Court ordered the owner and operator of a shipping vessel to remove remaining wreckage from a shipwreck and oil spill and to pay compensation for state and municipal clean-up expenses.105 In another case a defendant paint production company was ordered to undertake a survey of its discontinued operations to ensure compliance with the Pollution Control Act.106

Additionally, criminal enforcement plays a large role in the enforcement of Norwegian environmental law.107 The Supreme Court of Norway recently upheld the imposition of a NOK 250,000 fine and NOK 1,800,000 in damages for criminal violation of the Nature Diversity Act, Regulations for Sandvikbotn Natural Reserve, and the Water Resources Act. The defendant company was found to have willfully tapped more water from a small lake than was permitted, resulting in the desiccation of a large area of land and the death of numerous small animals and local vegetation.108 In another case, a well drilling company was fined NOK 400,000 for unlawful emission of waste water slurry into waterways in violation of the Pollution Control Act.109 Individuals can also be subject to criminal enforcement of environmental laws. In 2015, the Court fined two persons a total of NOK 825,000 for violation of the Pollution Control Act. The defendants had caused considerable environmental littering by keeping a large number of vehicles and other derelict objects on their property over many years.110 Individuals have also been held liable for unlawful hunting of deer111 and unlawful attempted hunting of wolves112 in violation of the Nature Diversity Act.

Judicial review of administrative decisions is rare and was sought in merely five out of 108 cases over a ten year period (1996-2005).113 Over the same period, only one out of five cases seeking to change an administrative decision was successful. The one success came in securing the reversal of an administrative decision issuing permits to hunt wolves and was only secured after much controversy, public outcry, and extensive work on the part of environmentalists.114

Constitutional cases are focused on Article 112 of the Constitution and can have broader implications. For example, the Arctic Oil case sought to prevent new Arctic oil drilling on the basis of Article 112’s guarantee of a healthy and productive natural environment. Greenpeace Norway, alongside other organisations, was ultimately unsuccessful in its appeal to the Supreme Court of Norway, which upheld the lower court’s narrow interpretation of the government’s obligation under Article 112. The court’s ruling only requires that agencies account for domestic production of CO2—not for naturally ensuing emissions occurring abroad—in determining the environmental effects of a state or agency action.115 This decision has wider-ranging implications for future Norwegian state action.116

C. Are there any administrative authorities empowered to act on environmental complaints and if so, how are they empowered to respond to complaints?

The Ministry of the Environment has primary responsibility for enforcing environmental policies. It has five sub-agencies, including the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, the Directorate for Nature Management, the Norwegian Mapping and Cadastre Authority, the Directorate for Cultural Heritage, and the Norwegian Polar Institute. Any person who believes their constitutional, statutory, or regulatory rights have been violated by the public environmental administration can file a claim. If an administrative appeal is made, it will go to a hierarchically superior body, as described in Section II.A.

A great number of environmentally relevant decisions are made by municipalities that sometimes prioritise other interests over preserving the environment, such as economy or employment. Such decisions may in most instances be appealed to the county governor who represents the central government and may ensure that environmental considerations are given due weight. However, if the Act leaves the municipality with discretionary authority, the county governor is obliged to place great weight on the municipal autonomy when deciding an appeal.117

A person who has a complaint about an administrative decision may also submit a petition to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration. The Ombudsman can then initiate an investigation, report its findings, and make recommendations. Recommendations may include recommending prosecutors initiate disciplinary action, but are not binding.118

 
 

IV. Civil and political rights

Freedom of peaceful assembly

A. How is children’s right to engage in peaceful assembly, including protests, protected in national law?

In 2003, Norway integrated the CRC into national law at a semi-constitutional level, by full and direct incorporation into the Human Rights Act. This means that the Constitution is the only document that supersedes the CRC’s legal authority, and that any legal discrepancies will be resolved in favor of the CRC. Article 15 of the CRC provides protection for children’s right to engage in peaceful assembly by explicitly mandating that all children have a right to peaceful assembly.

Article 101 of the Constitution guarantees that citizens can meet in peaceful assembly and demonstrations, while Art. 100 requires that the government “create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse.” Art. 109 of the Constitution mandates that education “safeguard the individual’s abilities and needs, and promote respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.

Article 92 of the Constitution states that authorities should respect and secure all human rights set forth in the Constitution, as well as in human rights conventions that are binding on Norway. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) integrates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Norwegian law.119 Those treaties contain Norway’s obligations to uphold and protect the civil and political rights that the country recognises at the regional and international levels, including the right to peaceful assembly, while similarly allowing for exceptions in certain situations.

B. Are there any legal limitations on the right of children to engage in peaceful assemblies?

Article 100 of the Constitution and art. 11 of the ECHR both generally protect Norwegians’ right to peaceful assembly, regardless of age. However, there are several notable exceptions to the right to peaceful assembly. If an assembly disturbs public peace, and does not disperse after a civil authority reads rioting provisions three times, the government is entitled to employ military force to disrupt the assembly.120 Furthermore, any person who causes, aids and abets, or leads a riot can face up to three years of imprisonment. Additionally, any person who causes the unlawful prevention or interruption of a public function, public peace and order, lawful traffic, the nighttime peace of a neighborhood, or the peace of a neighborhood where they remain unlawfully despite order to leave can be liable to fines or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.121

C. What penalties can be imposed on children for engaging in school strikes?

Norwegian students are obligated to attend school for at least ten years from the age of six. If a student misses compulsory schooling during this time, and if the absence is a result of deliberate actions on their parents’ or guardians’ part, the latter may be liable to fines. The Education Act does not mandate prosecution in situations of unexcused absence, unless the municipality demands it. Local authorities determine school rules and regulations. School is not compulsory for Norwegian children who are above the age of 16 years.122

While these limitations prevent Norwegians’ right to peaceful assembly from being absolute, there is little evidence that the government uses these laws to prevent children from peacefully assembling. There have been several large protests in Norway within the last two years involving children of all ages,123 and this study failed to find reports of forceful government intervention. In fact, in 2019, the Norwegian Culture Minister specifically asked schools not to hold schoolchildren who participated in the “School Strike for Climate Change” (led by Greta Thunberg) as absent.124

Freedom of expression

A. How is children’s right to freedom of expression protected in national law?

Article 100 of the Constitution maintains that all Norwegians shall have freedom of expression and provides constitutional protections for expressing ideas, information, and messages.

Article 10 of the ECHR and Article 19 of the ICCPR, which Norway has ratified and incorporated into the Human Rights Act, affirm that all individuals have the right to freedom of expression. International courts have interpreted these provisions to encompass every form of subjective idea and opinion capable of transmission.125 The CRC also guarantees the right to freedom of expression for children and states that governments should take all appropriate measures to ensure that children are protected against discrimination or punishment based on expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.126

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to freedom of expression that specifically apply to children?

While children enjoy the same freedom of expression protections as adults in Norway,127 there are some limitations. Article 100 of the Constitution only allows restrictions on such expressions provided they can be justified on grounds of truth, democracy, or another individual’s freedom to form opinions. It also prohibits prior censorship unless required to protect children and young persons from the harmful influence of moving pictures.

Section 185 of the Penal Code makes hate speech illegal in Norway and Section 9A-3 of the Education Act obligates primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary schools to have zero tolerance regarding offensive words or acts, such as bullying, violence, racism, discrimination, or ostracism to insult other students. If a student feels insulted in this regard, it is possible to write a report to the school, which has the duty to make an administrative decision in a timely manner.128

Freedom of association

A. How is children’s right to freedom of association protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

Article 101 of the Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to form, join and leave associations, including trade unions and political parties.” As described above, Norway has fully incorporated the ECHR, the ICCPR and the CRC into national law through the HRA.

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to association that specifically apply to children?

The Norwegian government is generally respectful of its citizen’s right to association.129 In 2014, 63 percent of Norwegians aged 13-15 were involved in some sort of organisation.130

However, national age restrictions set limitations on children’s ability to associate with certain groups. While the Constitution allows its citizens leeway to express their political beliefs, age requirements for voting and holding elected office prevent minors from exercising the right to political association as adults do.131

Access to information

A. How is children’s right to access information protected in national law? Are there any protections within the national constitution, legislation or developed through case law?

All Norwegians enjoy a constitutional right to access State and municipal documents. Limitations to this right must pertain to privacy concerns or other equally “weighty reasons.”132 Furthermore, according to Article 112 of the Constitution, citizens are entitled to information on the state of the natural environment and on the effects of any encroachment on nature that is planned or carried out, so that they may safeguard their right to a healthy environment.

The ECHR also protects Norwegians’ right to receive information. Norway is a member of the Open Government Partnership, a multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from national and subnational governments to promote open government.133 In 2006, Norway enacted the current “Freedom of Information Act” (FOIA).134 FOIA’s purpose is to facilitate open governmental administration. FOIA requires the Norwegian government to provide for and protect the components of a well-functioning democracy by requiring openness and transparency in public administration and the public sector. FOIA upholds principles of maximum disclosure and minimal limitations to the right of access. Under FOIA, the Norwegian government has a duty to provide information on request, free of charge. This rule applies to Norwegian citizens and non-citizens alike, meaning that anyone in the world has a right to request public Norwegian documents and records regardless of age. If the Norwegian government denies a request for a public document or record, they must provide reasoning for their decision. All rejections may be appealed.135

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to access information that apply specifically to children?

FOIA provides access to information regardless of age, but respecting to obligations of confidentiality does not extend a right of public access to documents pertaining to child welfare. Furthermore, Art. 100 of the Constitution allows censorship to the extent it serves to shield minors from inappropriate moving pictures. The Act on Protection of Minors from Harmful Audiovisual Programmes enacted in 2015 obligates the Parliament to set laws that label media with an age limit. It is the Norwegian Media Authority’s responsibility to institute guidelines for age classifications of audiovisual programming based on determinations of whether the programming could be harmful to children. Norway establishes age restrictions on audiovisual programming that could potentially have an emotionally harrowing or cognitively disturbing effect on minors. Audiovisual programming with seriously harmful content receives an age limit of 18 years.136

Finally, the Personal Data Act sets age restrictions on children’s ability to use social media.137 Norwegian children under the age of 13 who want to establish an online social media profile are required to acquire approval from a legal guardian. Social media service providers are responsible for providing solutions that allow guardians to grant consent. It is unclear, however, how effective these measures are at preventing children under the age of 13 from accessing social media, as a 2018 study conducted by the Norwegian Media Authority found that 79 percent of girls and 69 percent of boys between the age of 9 and 12 use social media in Norway.

C. Does the national curriculum for schools include environmental education?

Article 29 of the CRC states that students must learn to develop respect for the environment. “Friluftsliv,” the Nordic concept of enjoying the outdoors, is a tradition deeply ingrained within Norwegian culture.138 The Norwegian core curriculum (the guiding document for education) has sustainable development as one of its interdisciplinary topics, aimed at ensuring children understand the relationship between social, economic and environmental conditions. It is directed at developing children’s competence to make responsible choices and act ethically and with an environmental awareness.139

The core curriculum also sets out “Respect for nature and environmental awareness” as one of its core values:

“School shall help the pupils to develop an appreciation of nature so they can enjoy and respect nature and develop climate and environmental awareness. Human beings are part of nature and are responsible for taking good care of it. Throughout their schooling the pupils must acquire knowledge about and develop respect for nature. They must experience nature and see it as a resource and as a source of utility, joy, health and learning. The pupils shall develop awareness of how our lifestyles impact nature and the climate, and thus also our societies. The school shall help the pupils to develop the willingness to protect the environment. Children and young people will need to deal with the today's and tomorrow's challenges, and our common future depends on the coming generations and their willingness and ability to protect our world. Global climate changes, pollution and loss of biological diversity are some of the greatest environmental threats in the world. These challenges must be solved together. We need knowledge, ethical awareness and technological innovation to find solutions and make the necessary changes to our lifestyle to protect life on earth.”140

***

End notes

1 Available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1814-05-17?q=grunnloven.

2 See The People v. Arctic Oil, Case No. 18-060499ASD-BORG/03, at 16 (Ct. App. 2020), available here (explaining that the language of the third paragraph, which referred to the obligation of State authorities to “issue further provisions” in the 1992 version, was modified in 2014 to refer to the State authorities’ obligation to “take measures”, which strengthened the first paragraph of the provision).


3 Act (No. 30 of 1999) to strengthen the position of human rights in Norwegian law (Human Rights Act), 21 May, 1999, https://app.uio.no/ub/ujur/oversatte-lover/data/lov-19990521-030-eng.pdf.

4 The People v. Artic Oil, Case No. 20-051052SIV-HRET, at 92 (Sup. Ct. 2020), https://www.xn--klimasksml-95a8t.no/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/judgement_translated.pdf.

5 See CRIN’s Report on Access to Justice for children in Norway, available here

6 See The People v. Arctic Oil, Case No. 18-060499ASD-BORG/03, (Ct. App. 2020), at 36.

7 Id. at 2.

8 Id. at 7-8.

9 Id. at 9-10.

10 Id. at 6

11 Id. at 18

12 Id. at 11

13 Id. at 27.

14 Id. at 28-29.

15 Id. at 36

16 See Arctic oil prevails over ‘The People’, NewsinEnglish.no, 2020, available at: https://www.newsinenglish.no/2020/12/22/arctic-oil-prevails-over-the-people/.

17 See The People v. Artic Oil, Case No. 20-051052SIV-HRET, (Sup. Ct. 2020), at 139.

18 Id. at 140.

19 Id. at 116.

20 Id. at 142.

21 Id. at 145.

22 Id. at 149.

23 Id. at 162

24 Id. at 158-160.

25 Id. at 208-10.

26 Id. at 216-218

27 Id. at 232.

28 Id. at 175-8

29 Brief for the Center for International Environmental Law, The People v. Arctic Oil Case, available at: https://www.xn--klimasksml-95a8t.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brief-of-Amicus-Curiae-CIEL-in-GreenpeaceNaturUngdom-v-Norway-Oct-28-2017.pdf.

30 See The People v. Arctic Oil, Case No. 18-060499ASD-BORG/03, https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/PeopleVsArcticOil-Appeal-January2020.pdf, at 17-18.

31 The People v. Artic Oil, Case No. 20-051052SIV-HRET, (Sup. Ct. 2020), at 49-55

32 See Brief of Amicus Curiae from Center for International Environmental Law at 12-13 (noting that in its 2013 report to the UN General Assembly on Intergenerational Solidarity, the UN Secretary General emphasized that the “basis of our moral obligations towards future people is thus argued to be simply the equal concern and respect we owe to all humans,” which an intergenerational interpretation of human rights instruments can facilitate.)

33 Outdoor Recreation Act, 1957, available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/outdoor-recreation-act/id172932/

34 Nature Conservation Act, 1970, available at: https://www.ecolex.org/details/legislation/act-no-63-of-1970-nature-conservation-act-lex-faoc003772/.

35 Product Control Act, 1976, available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/product-control-act/id172150/.

36 Cultural Heritage Act, 1978, available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/cultural-heritage-act/id173106/. In Norway, as opposed to most other countries, cultural heritage falls within the remit of the Ministry of the Environment rather than e.g. the Ministry of Culture.

37 Pollution Control Act, 1981, available here

38 CO2 Tax Act on Petroleum Activities, 1990, available in Norwegian at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1975-06-13-35

39 Energy Act, 1991, available at: https://www.ecolex.org/details/legislation/energy-act-no-50-of-1990-lex-faoc115735/

40 Gene Technology Act, 1993, available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/gene-technology-act/id173031/

41 Land Act, 1995, available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/The-Land-Act/id269774/

42 Petroleum Act, 1996, available at: https://www.npd.no/en/regulations/acts/act-29-november-1996-no2.-72-relating-to-petroleum-activities/#Section-1-1

43 Svalbard Environmental Protect Act, 2001 available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/svalbard-environmental-protection-act/id173945/

44 Environmental Information Act, 2003, available here

45 Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Act, 2004, available here.

46 Forestry Act, 2005, available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/Act-relating-to-forestry-Forestry-Act/id87139/

47Planning and Building Act, 2008, available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/planning-building-act/id570450/

48 Nature Diversity Act, 2009, available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/nature-diversity-act/id570549/

49 Offshore Energy Act, Prop. No. 107 (2008-2009), available here.

50 Natural Damage Compensation Act, 2017, available here.

51 Climate Change Act, 2017, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/climate-change-act/id2593351/

52 Government of Norway, Ministry of Climate and Environ., Norway Steps up 2030 climate goal to at least 50% towards 55%, 2020, available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/norge-forsterker-klimamalet-for-2030-til-minst-50-prosent-og-opp-mot-55-prosent/id2689679/

53 See https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/heilskapeleg-plan-for-a-na-klimamalet/id2827600/?expand=factbox2834802

54 Available here. See also Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20200428; REACH Ready, : https://www.cia.org.uk/reachready/REACH/

55 See https://www.norskeutslipp.no/en/Frontpage/?SectorID=90.

56 Penal Code, 2020, available here.

57 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, available at: http://library.arcticportal.org/1699/1/marpol.pdf

58 Ship Safety and Security Act, 2015, available here

59 The Nordic Environmental Protection Convention, 1974, available here. See Art. 3.

60 Public Administration Act, 2017, available here.

61 Act on Mediation and Trial in Civil Disputes, 2008, available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-06-17-90.

62 Disputes Act at § 4-3 (1).

63 Pursuant to Section 4-5(3).

64 Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Lugano Convention), 2007, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22007A1221(03)&from=EN. See Title III.

65 Helle Tegner Anker, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Annika Nilsson & Leila Suvantola, The Role of Courts in Environmental Law – Nordic Perspectives, Nordic Environmental Law Journal, 2009, available here. See also Justice Bård Tønder, The control of the legislative and the executive power by Norwegian courts, Panstwo I Prawo, 2014, available here

66 Helle Tegner Anker & Annika Nilsson, The Role of Courts in Environmental Law – Nordic Perspectives, 3 Journal of Court Innovation, 2010, available at: www.pace.edu/sites/default/files/IJIEA/jciAnker-Nilsson_1JB%202-16_cropped.pdf.

67 Helle Tegner Anker, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Annika Nilsson & Leila Suvantola, op. cit.

68 Yaffa Epstein, Access to Justice: Remedies, 2011, available here.

69 Disputes Act at § 1-5.

70 Justice Bård Tønder, op. cit.

71 Helle Tegner Anker, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Annika Nilsson & Leila Suvantola, op. cit.

72 Justice Bård Tønder, op. cit.

73 See The People v. Arctic Oil Case, No. 18-060499ASD-BORG/03, at 139.

74 Pollution Control Act, Ch. 8 and 9.

75 Criminal Procedure Act, 2013, available here.

76 Disputes Act Section 35-3.

77 Disputes Act Chapters 29 and 30.

78 Public Administration Act Section 2 (e)

79 Public Administration Act Section 28.

80 Disputes Act Section 1-4, Helle Tegner Anker, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Annika Nilsson & Leila Suvantola, op. cit

81 Stephen Stec, Handbook on Access to Justice under the Aarhus Convention, 2013, available here.

82 The Criminal Procedure Act Section 93 g.

83 Trude Haugli, Constitutional Rights for Children in Norway, in Children’s Constitutional Rights in the Nordic Countries, 2019, available at: https://brill.com/search?f_0=author&q_0=Trude+Haugli, noting that the preparatory works for the Constitutional amendment indicate that this was intentional.

84 See https://legallibrary.crin.org/abc-d-and-norwegian-organization-for-asylum-seekers-noas-v-the-immigration-appeals-board/.

85 Ibid. See also Thomson Reuters Practical Law, Litigation and Enforcement in Norway, 2020, available at: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-017-4126?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1.

86 David Lewin, Continental European Legislative and Judicial Trends: The Norwegian Product Liability Act, 2011, available at: https://www.gccapitalideas.com/2011/11/14/continental-european-legislative-and-judicial-trends-the-norwegian-product-liability-act/.

87 Ulf Stridbeck & Philos Vein Magnusseen, Prevention of Wrongful Convictions: Norwegian Legal Safeguards and the Criminal Cases Review Commission, 2013, available at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=uclr.

88 See 1979 Norway Limitation Act https://app.uio.no/ub/ujur/oversatte-lover/data/lov-19790518-018-eng.pdf.

89 Id. Section 2.

90 Id. Section 3(1).

91 Id. at Section 9.

92 See generally Penal Code, Sections 86-89. See also Sections 240 and 241.

93 Olaf Halvorsen Rønning, Legal Aid in Norway, available here. Chart does not show environmental cases appearing in list of all causes up to 4%.

94 See Legal Aid Act https://app.uio.no/ub/ujur/oversatte-lover/data/lov-19800613-035-eng.pdf. Other categories of exceptions include immigration cases, claims for compensation or redress for unlawful criminal prosecution, domestic violence cases, cases relating to forced marriage, cases where coercion is involved (e.g., psychiatric health care cases), and cases concerning conscientious objection to military service.

95 Other relevant types of cases include marital cases, custody cases, tenancy cases regarding termination of contract and eviction, employment cases regarding unfair dismissal, and cases concerning compensation for victims of violent crime.

96 Helle Tegner Anker, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Annika Nilsson & Leila Suvantola, op. cit.

97 Cameron McKenna, Study of civil liability systems for remedying environmental damage, 1995, available here.

98 Greenpeace, Press Release, Outrage after Judgment in Favor of the Norwegian Oil State, Dec. 22 2020, available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/46140/outrage-after-judgement-in-favour-of-the-norwegian-oil-state/ (detailing the outcome of appeal in the case of People v. Arctic seeking reversal of lower court decision denying injunction).

99 Helle Tegner Anker, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Annika Nilsson & Leila Suvantola, op. cit. See also Helle Tegner Anker & Annika Nilsson, op. cit. and Yaffa Epstein, op. cit.

100 Helle Tegner Anker, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Annika Nilsson & Leila Suvantola, op. cit. See also Helle Tegner Anker & Annika Nilsson, op. cit. and Yaffa Epstein, op. cit.

101 Ibid.

102 Supreme Court of Norway HR-2017-1690-A, available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRENG/avgjorelse/hr-2017-1690-a-eng.

103 Supreme Court of Norway HR-2012-1254-A, available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRENG/avgjorelse/hr-2012-1254-a-eng.

104 Helle Tegner Anker, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Annika Nilsson & Leila Suvantola, op. cit.

105 Supreme Court of Norway HR-2017-331-A, available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRENG/avgjorelse/hr-2017-331-a-eng.

106 Supreme Court of Norway HR-2010-443-A, available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRENG/avgjorelse/hr-2010-443-a-eng.

107 Helle Tegner Anker, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Annika Nilsson & Leila Suvantola, op. cit.

108 Supreme Court of Norway HR-2020-955-A, available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRENG/avgjorelse/hr-2020-955-a-eng.

109 Supreme Court of Norway HR-2013-1056-A, available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRENG/avgjorelse/hr-2013-1056-a-eng.

110 Supreme Court of Norway HR-2015-791-A, available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRENG/avgjorelse/hr-2015-791-a-eng.

111 Supreme Court of Norway HR-2016-1253-A, available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRENG/avgjorelse/hr-2016-1253-a-eng (conviction resulting in suspended sentence of 21 days, fine of NOK 25,000, loss of hunting rights for five years, and confiscation of two firearms).

112 Supreme Court of Norway HR-2016-1857-A, available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/HRENG/avgjorelse/hr-2016-1857-a-eng (conviction of four men resulting in sentence of imprisonment for at least 120 days, not to exceed one year, and suspension of hunting and trapping rights for three years).

113 Helle Tegner Anker, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Annika Nilsson & Leila Suvantola, op. cit.

114 See also Norway Greens Try to Halt Wolf Hunt, CNN, Feb. 13 2001, available here.

115 Briefing Note, Greenpeace, People v. Arctic Oil: appeal to the Norwegian Supreme Court (Apr. 2019), https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-norway-stateless/2019/04/ced08ed6-ced08ed6-appeal-summary.pdf.

116 Greenpeace, Press Release, op. cit.

117 Public Administration Act Section 34.

118 See Yaffa Epstein, op. cit.

119 Act No. 30/1999 to Strengthen the Position of Human Rights in Norwegian Law (Human Rights Act).

120 Art. 25 of the Constitution.

121 Penal Code, Part II Criminal Acts, Sections 182 and 181.

122 Act No. 61/1998 relating to Primary and Secondary Education and Training (The Education Act), Sections 2-1 and 9A-10.

123 Anna Kireeva, Norway’s young walk out of school to demand climate action, Bellona, March 25 2019, https://bellona.org/news/climate-change/2019-03-norways-young-walk-out-of-school-to-demand-climate-action

124 Norway Culture Minister Asks Schools to Help students Who Participate in the Climate Strike, The Nordic Page, August 30 2019, https://www.tnp.no/norway/politics/norway-culture-minister-asks-schools-to-help-students-who-participate-in-the-climate-strike.

125 Anne Eidsaa Hamre, Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech on the Internet: Rules of responsibility in Norway in light of international human rights law, 2018, available here.

126 Art. 2 and 13.

127 Trude Haugli, op. cit.

128 Education Act, Section 9A-4.

129 See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Norway 2019 Human Rights Report, 2019, available at: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NORWAY-2019-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf.

130 Norwegian Ministry of Children and Equality, The Rights of the Child in Norway, Sept. 26 2016

131 Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, The Main Features of the Norwegian Electoral System—Summary, available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/elections-and-democracy/den-norske-valgordningen/the-norwegian-electoral-system/Norwegian-Electoral-System-Summary/id570513/#2.

132 Art. 100 of the Constitution.

133 For a complete list of members of the Open Government Project, visit: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/.

134 Freedom of Information Act, 2006 (Act No. 16/2006), substituting the previous Act of 1970 based on the same idea.

135 Section 32. Iris Nguyen-Duy, The Norwegian Freedom of Information Act – A not so Transparent Act?, Int’l. Rev. of Open Govt’s, 2015.

136 Act Relating to the Protection of Minors Against Harmful Audiovisual Programmes, 2016. See ch. 2.

137 Norwegian Media Authority, My child on social media – what you need to know, Medietlisynet, 2018,link here.. Among the demographic of Norwegian children between the ages of 9 and 12, Snapchat is the most popular social media platform.

138 Maddy Savage, Friluftsliv: The Nordic concept of getting outdoors, BBC, Dec. 10, 2017, https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20171211-friluftsliv-the-nordic-concept-of-getting-outdoors.

139 Core curriculum – values and principles for primary and secondary education (Royal Decree 1 September 2017, Government’s translation), https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/verdier-og-prinsipper-for-grunnopplaringen---overordnet-del-av-lareplanverket/id2570003/, para. 2.5.3.

140 Ibid, para. 1.5.