182
The Court of Appeal also points out that a broad majority of the Storting has concurred in the 23rd Licensing Round, with knowledge of the mentioned environmental risks, see Recommendation to the Storting No. 495 (2012–2013) on the opening of Barents Sea SouthEast, based on the Impact Assessment. We will also point out that a number of initiatives to stop the 23rd Licensing Round for the blocks most exposed to the risk of local environmental harm have been rejected with a broad majority, see Recommendation to the Storting No. 383 (2014– 15), Recommendation to the Storting No. 274 (2015–2016) and Recommendation to the Storting No. 326 (2017–2018). As the Court of Appeal sees it, the risk of local environmental harm is so low that the decision is not contrary to Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution. 3.5 Overall assessment of the decision’s significance for the environment. Socioeconomics The parties agree that an overall assessment is to be made of the environmental impacts. The Environmental Organisations have pointed out that the purpose that justifies the decision – a net socio-economic benefit – is based on incorrect premises and cannot be assumed. The Court of Appeal is satisfied here with referring to the review below related to the proceedings. There is no basis to review the assessment that development and operation are highly likely to result in a net socio-economic benefit. Nor can the Court of Appeal see under an overall assessment that the decision exceeds the threshold under Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution. The total greenhouse gas emissions, i.e. from both the production and the combustion, must be assessed against the serious climate changes. However, the matter involves uncertain and unique future emissions, and the measures under the third paragraph of Article 112 that could provide room for the emissions can best be assessed at the time the emissions are imminent, i.e. in connection with any approval of a plan for development and operation. There is also an element, which is not in itself determinative, that all consequences for the environment that have been reviewed above, as well as the objections to the socio-economic assessments, have been considered by the Storting several times but the decision nevertheless has been upheld with a broad majority. 4. Is the decision contrary to ECHR Articles 2 or 8 or Articles 93 or 102 of the Norwegian Constitution? 4.1
The issue of dismissal
The Government has questioned whether the Environmental Organisations can act as plaintiffs in claiming that the decision is invalid because of ECHR Articles 2 and 8, as they cannot be a “victim”. If they are unable to do so, it must lead to this part of the lawsuit being dismissed. Under ECHR Article 34, any person, organisation or group of individuals claiming to be subject to violations (a “victim”) of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention may bring the matter before the European Court of Human Rights. Under Section 1-3 of the Norwegian Dispute Act, there is a requirement for a party’s connection to the claim in order to bring a legal action. Section 1-4 of the Norwegian Dispute Act expressly provides that organisations may bring legal actions but requires that the conditions in Section 1-3 are met.
