WHAT could be a lengthy legal process began last week as environmental pressure group Greenpeace went to the High Court with its objections to the UK's 17th licensing round.

Greenpeace is claiming that the award of exploration licences in the round is in breach of a number of European Commission environmental directives.

The group is being opposed by the UK government and 22 oil companies.

At the directions hearing on Thursday, Mr Justice Tucker said the date for a further hearing on Greenpeace's application for Full Judicial Review should be set for sometime after September 10, with two dates earmarked in late September.

Oil companies are required to file any evidence in opposition to Greenpeace's application 14 days after last Thursday's hearing. Greenpeace will have a further 14 days to submit evidence.

If a substantive hearing is to follow, it should take place on the first available dates after November 5.

Mr Justice Tucker said the case was of "considerable importance and national interest to all the parties concerned," and urged that the matter be swiftly dealt with.

Greenpeace is arguing that the award of licences in the 17th Round primarily breaches the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive but also the European Habitats Directive and the Habitats and Birds Directive.

Representing the UK government and the oil companies, Michael Beloff QC, said the basis on which the licences had been awarded was in existence in 1994 and 1995.

Moreover, he said, Greenpeace had delayed its action in relation to the award of licenses in the UK's 17th Round from April until June 13 thus invalidating its application.

Mr Beloff spoke of the "chilling effect" which Greenpeace's action was having on oil companies awarded licences in the 17th Round and the considerable investment they had already made in the new acreage.

Greenpeace hit out at what it described as an attempt to "shut it out of court" by opposing its application at a very early stage.

Mr Nigel Pleming QC, acting for Greenpeace, said it would be "disasterous if a challenge of this magnitude were held up because of the technical rules of delay."

Greenpeace estimates that the cost of the action so far is at least £20,000, with expenses set to escalate as the case goes on.

Costs are expected to be met by Greenpeace's campaign funds.

Mr Justice Tucker said Greenepeace would not have to pay the oil companies' costs relating to the inclusion of four tranches not on the Atlantic Frontier, in its original appiication.