Abstract The present contribution questions the role of principles of EU law in climate litigation. Notwithstanding their importance within the EU general regulatory framework, their operationalisation in climate litigation is underexplored. To appreciate EU principles in the context of climate change litigation, this paper positions them within the scope and dynamics of climate change litigation worldwide. Secondly, with this background, the analysis develops as a case law review on the emerging role of the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and the minimum harmonisation principle in the climate litigation. To date, five relevant climate lawsuits have unfolded before the courts of EU Member States, which allows for canvassing the content, status, and significance of the principles under examination with concrete examples of the climate lawsuits where these principles have been applied. In this regard, the paper finds that courts in Member States have steadily provided protection of the climate and future generations through rights-based arguments supported by principles. In this context, domestic courts seem to be filling the normative gap left by the CJEU by interpreting fundamental rights in relation to EU environmental principles in what I conceptualise as “the rights turn through principles.” As a final point, the paper concludes with the prospective development of EU principles in the EU legal order and beyond, possibly enabling comparisons with other jurisdictions.

Abstract In contrast to climate protection law, which regulates the mitigation of climate change, climate adaptation law deals with the management of the unavoidable consequences of climate change. This article provides an overview of its legal basis from a European perspective. In addition to international law, especially the Paris Agreement, EU law is of central importance in this respect. It is primarily shaped by the EU Climate Law enacted in 2021. However, this Law only sets a general framework and is further defined by legal acts of various sectoral policies, especially in the field of environment. Climate adaptation regulations at the level of European member states are presented using the example of Germany, where a Federal Climate Adaptation Act is currently being drafted. Due to Germany's federal state structure, state legislation is also analysed. Most of the German states (“Länder”) have their own climate laws, although their content varies. The municipal level is only addressed with restraint in these laws. The reasons for this are of a fiscal constitutional nature and will be explained in more detail.

Abstract This article examines the adjustment mechanisms which have been designed and implemented under China’s experimentations with its emissions trading scheme (ETS). In China, several ETS pilot programs have adopted these mechanisms in the process of cap setting, allowance allocation and price regulation to allow regulatory intervention at different stages of the ETS operation to ensure that particular regulatory objectives are going to be achieved. Using doctrinal analysis, this article provides some critical insights into the specific regulatory design of the flexible mechanisms in China. It highlights their impact on regulatory stability and on the credibility of the ETS program. Considering that the ETS pilots are designed for and operated at local levels for the purpose of testing regulatory design and implementation in order to inform the policymakers at the central government when designing the national scheme, the lessons learned from the ETS pilots with respect to the adjustment mechanism are critical to fulfilling this strategy.

1 http:// www. maast richt unive rsity. nl/ events/ compe tition-law-and-policy-recent-devel opmen ts-china-andeu-online-semin ar.

In digital markets, concentrated Big Data and analytical algorithms enable undertakings to predict each consumer’s willingness to pay with increasing accuracy and offer consumers personalized recommendations and tailored prices accordingly. In this context, concerns have arisen about whether and when AI-enabled price discrimination amounts to an abuse of dominance under competition law and would require a legal response. To address these concerns, this paper will analyze AI-enabled price discrimination from a comparative law and economics perspective. In economics, price discrimination is not always undesirable as it can increase static efficiency, and, on some occasions, it can promote dynamic efficiency and boost consumer welfare. Nevertheless, it may also lead to exclusionary and exploitative effects, especially once Tech Giants abuse their dominant positions in relevant markets. Since the protection of free competition and consumer welfare are objectives of competition law in China and the EU, competition law seems a proper instrument to step into digital markets to address these concerns. Indeed, the EU and China have established mixed regimes of competition law and other rules to tackle unfair and/or anti-competitive AI-enabled price discrimination. As such, AI-enabled price discrimination does not always require a competition law response and it requires competition authorities to make a trade-off between different considerations.

Statutory dominant firms, different from dominant firms that have gained their market power through competition on the merits, have derived their market position from choices made by the state. From an economic perspective, tying by this kind of firm typically generates significant anti-competitive effects that are likely to outweigh the possible pro-competitive effects. Both in China and the EU, such tying practices have frequently taken place. Nevertheless, the economic findings have not been fully reflected in competition provisions and competition practice in these two jurisdictions. This may lead to error costs and enforcement costs, which is detrimental to consumer welfare. It is thus important for competition authorities and courts to carefully consider the economic findings, while taking into account also the principles of proportionality and legal certainty. To enhance the effectiveness of competition law, this study proposes potential ways of applying a differentiated (stricter) scrutiny of tying by statutory dominant firms to reduce error costs and enforcement costs.