ECHR: Early and comprehensive EIA for fossil fuel projects must include climate effects
On 28 October 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its first ruling on a climate-related case concerning states’ procedural duties when approving potentially climate-harming projects. The case, brought by two environmental NGOs and several individuals, challenged Norway’s decision to grant new licenses for exploratory oil drilling in the Arctic. The applicants argued that Norway failed to properly assess the climate impacts of the project and lacked adequate measures to address climate risks. The Court dismissed the individual applicants but accepted the standing of the NGOs, confirming that environmental organizations do not need to prove particularly vulnerable or individually affected members to bring climate cases.
Although the ECtHR did not examine Norway’s broader fossil-fuel phase-out policies, it set important procedural standards. It held that environmental impact assessments must be early, thorough, and must include all climate effects, including full quantification of greenhouse-gas emissions—especially downstream (Scope 3) emissions—both domestically and abroad. EIAs must also consider compatibility with national and international climate commitments and must involve early public participation when alternatives remain open. The Court also emphasized assessing the cumulative climate effects of a state’s fossil-fuel policy. Although the ECtHR found no violation by Norway, the judgment provides significant guidance for future climate-relevant projects beyond the fossil-fuel sector.
Downlisting of Wolf Protection: EU-Law Violations in Salzburg´s Hunting Law
As an EU member, Austria is bound by Union law. Until July 2025, wolves were strictly protected under the Habitats Directive. For strictly protected species the Habitats Directive lays down a general prohibition to kill with only very limited exceptions. An exception must serve a specific purpose, be necessary and suitable for achieving that purpose and must be compatible with maintaining a favourable conservation status for the population. In July 2025, the wolf was downgraded to “protected,” which means that there is no more automatic prohibition to kill. But the European Court of Justice made clear that the conservation status remains legally decisive, requiring monitoring and measures to restore it if unfavourable. If the conservation status is unfavourable, hunting bans are still required.
The federal state Salzburg amended its hunting law, removing the wolf from the list of specially protected species (§ 103) and allowing the government to set hunting seasons by ordinance. While year-round protection is maintained in principle, exceptions can be granted under § 56(2) without any reference to the conservation status. This undermines the effectiveness of protection and violates EU law. Since the conservation status is unfavourable in Austria hunting bans are required and exceptions of those bans can only be granted individually and under very strict requirements, linked to restoring a favourable status. Besides exceptions must be publicly accessible and challengeable in line with the Aarhus Convention. The current Salzburg regulation fails these requirements and must therefore be revised urgently.