In September 2020, six Portuguese children and young adults filed a climate change case with the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) against thirty-three European states, comprising Europe’s major emitters. This chapter outlines the basis on which they argue that these states are violating their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) by failing to adopt the radical measures required to safeguard their futures. In particular, it outlines how principles of shared state responsibility are invoked alongside a related general principle of law applicable in situations involving causal uncertainty and multiple wrongdoers to address the ambiguity surrounding the extent of states’ respective ‘fair shares’ of the necessary global mitigation effort. These principles are relied upon to reinforce the paramountcy of the need to achieve the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement to realize the rights of the youth-applicants. That various core principles of ECHR jurisprudence, including the margin of appreciation and the principle of effectiveness, support this view is further outlined. The chapter also outlines, with reference to the landmark Urgenda decision, how the approach taken by the youth-applicants in this case can reinforce the efforts of domestic climate change litigators in Europe and beyond.

This chapter studies the balancing function of Article 101(3) TFEU individual exemptions/exceptions. It reveals a great divergence in the frequency with which the Commission, national competition authorities, and EU and national courts have invoked and accepted the Article 101(3) TFEU, as well as their interpretations of the types of relevant benefits, the balancing process, and the intensity of control. Moreover, it uncovers the ‘death’ of Article 101(3) TFEU defence in the Commission’s practice following modernisation.

This chapter studies the balancing function of Article 101(3) TFEU individual exemptions/exceptions. It reveals a great divergence in the frequency with which the Commission, national competition authorities, and EU and national courts have invoked and accepted the Article 101(3) TFEU, as well as their interpretations of the types of relevant benefits, the balancing process, and the intensity of control. Moreover, it uncovers the ‘death’ of Article 101(3) TFEU defence in the Commission’s practice following modernisation.