Courts in Europe increasingly acknowledge an individual right to emission reduction against states. Such a right forms a new policy tool that can be used to enforce emission reduction. It can also be used to enforce scientifically sound environmental policy, as Courts recognise science as a default position when determining the content of the right. The individual right to emission reduction is another tool in the making to consider when implementing scientific insights into policy making.

This report analyzes the tobacco carve-out clause (as well as the negotiations that led to its adoption) included in the final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which permits the TPP Parties to deny investors that challenge their tobacco control measures access to the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. The report also discusses the potential advantages and disadvantages of such a solution.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in Case C-106/14, Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution (FCD) and Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison (FMB) v Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable et de lʼénergie.

District Court of The Hague, 24 June 2015, The Urgenda Foundation v. The Netherlands, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7145

The Dutch State has to ensure that the Dutch emissions in the year 2020 will be at least 25% lower than those in 1990.

The parties agree that the severity and scope of the climate problem make it necessary to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the State's current policy, the Netherlands will achieve a reduction of 17% at most in 2020, which is below the norm of 25% to 40% for developed countries deemed necessary in climate science and international climate policy.

With this order, the court has not entered the domain of politics. The court must provide legal protection, also in cases against the government, while respecting the government's scope for policymaking. For these reasons, the court should exercise restraint and has limited therefore the reduction order to 25%, the lower limit of the 25%-40% norm.

Case C-195/14, Teek anne ECLI:EU:C:2015:361, not yet published

The labelling of a foodstuff must not mislead the consumer by giving the impression that a particular ingredient is present, even though it is not in fact present. The list of ingredients may, even though correct and comprehensive, not be capable of correcting sufficiently the consumer's erroneous or misleading impression that stems from such labelling (official headnote)

Case C-456/13 P, T&L Sugars Ltd and Sidul Açúcares v Commission, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:284

Article 263 TFEU allows applicants to challenge regulatory acts which are of direct concern to them and do not entail implementing measures. In this judgment the Court confirmed that the degree of discretion afforded to implementing authorities is irrelevant when determining the existence of implementing measures. This note explores some of the consequences of that finding on the structure of the system of remedies under the Treaties.

Joined Cases C-404/12P and C-405/12P

The Aarhus Convention was concluded in order to strengthen the rights of the public on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. The Convention provides that members of the public shall have access to administrative or judicial procedures to challenge measures by private persons and public authorities that contravene provisions of national law relating to the environment. At EU level, a regulation made the Aarhus Convention applicable to EU institutions. Pursuant to that regulation, review of measures adopted by EU institutions is limited to administrative acts. Two NGOs challenged the legality of that limitation and filed legal action. The case was related to the establishment of EU maximum residue levels for active substances contained in crop protection products. The Commission refused to review this measure which it considered to be no administrative act. The Court of Justice of the European Union has recently given its judgment in that case. The impact of the judgment goes beyond the crop protection sector as it concerns the scope of the internal review concept in general. Further, but not less important, the Court has clarified to which extent international treaties concluded by the EU can be relied upon by individuals.