This is the Fjord Lawsuit

Main objection in the Court of Appeal

In the appeal, the lawsuit is limited to the EU Water Framewok Directive and the prohibition against pollution of a water resource.

Serious Undermining of the Water Framework Directive

According to the EU Water Framework Directive, it is prohibited to pollute water resources like fjords, lakes, and rivers. If pollution is to be permitted, strict requirements must be met. The activity must be of «overriding public interest», as stated in Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive. When the discharge permit was granted, the government’s justification was that the mining operation would generate revenue for owners, employees, and the public sector. The Norwegian state argues that this aligns with the directive’s requirement for «overriding public interest». The environmental organizations have consistently argued that the government’s interpretation was incorrect, and that neither private profit, tax revenue, nor employee income qualifies under the directive’s criteria.

In the autumn of 2024, the case was heard in the EFTA Court in Luxembourg. During the hearing, the environmental organizations received support from both the European Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA).

March 5, 2025, the EFTA court ruled in favour of the environmental organizations. The judgment states that economic considerations are not a good enough reason to allow pollution of a fjord like Førdefjorden. The judgement is not legally binding, but serves as an advisory opinion that must be taken into account in the Court of Appeal. 

Main objections in the Oslo District Court

A clear violation

The Norwegian Waste Regulation chapter 17 is the Norwegian transposition of the EU Mining Waste Directive. The discharge permit from 2015 did not include a waste management plan, which is a clear breach of the mining waste directive and the Norwegian waste regulation, and should according to the Norwegian pollution control act void the discharge permit. Further, the organizations argue that the failure to produce a waste management plan early in the process has led to a project that has not sufficiently considered waste prevention or minimization in the choice of design and methods for mining.  

Failure to prevent deterioration of the ecological status of the waterbody

The Norwegian Water Regulation is the Norwegian transposition of the EU Water Framework Directive. The discharge permit is given on the basis of

A) Overriding public interest – The organizations will argue that «overriding public interest» is interpreted wrong in the Norwegian transposition of the EU Water Framework Directive.

B) No significantly better environmental option – there is a competing mining company that has applied for mineral rights and operating license with a different project without sea dumping and with full reuse of mining waste.

Negative consequences for biodiversity have been underestimated

Dumping of mining waste will according to the state’s own marine expert advisers at the Institute of Marine Research and the Directorate of Fisheries have serious negative consequences for Førdefjord.

No proper examination of waste utilization

The mining company has not done a thorough examination of the possibility of reusing waste from the mining process. The organizations argue that the zoning regulation plan (for waste deposit, both storage on land and waste deposit in the fjord itself) and the discharge permit has major deficiencies.