In 2014, European heads of state selected new targets for the EU as part of the 2030 climate and energy framework. The targets will guide the ambition and nature of EU policy in this area until 2030 and are likely to have important implications for Europe’s transition to a low-carbon economy. The decision taken by the European Council was preceded by several years of vigorous interaction between interest groups, the European Commission and the member states. The outcome of this interaction set the agenda for EU climate and energy policy but the role of interest groups in climate and energy policy, especially relative to important economic ideas, is relatively under researched. By augmenting and applying the multiple streams approach developed by John Kingdon in the 1980s and using process-tracing techniques, this thesis contributes a detailed case study of this important instance of European interest representation. It is found that the complex and dynamic political context for the interaction made planning and executing advocacy campaigns challenging for all actors. The debate about the 2030 framework is shown to hinge on the idea of technology-neutrality and its status on the policymaking agenda. A number of policy coalitions are observed with a wide range of characteristics, some novel. Several attempts at ‘policy entrepreneurship’ by interest groups are recorded but most were disrupted by the confused and fast-changing political situation. It is shown that a combination of spill-over between policy windows, framing and coalition building activity served to push the idea of technology neutrality up the agenda. The multiple streams approach is shown to be broadly applicable to the research context and aims but greater agency over policy windows than originally assumed must be granted to actors and the possibility for successful policy entrepreneurship to yield unintended policy outcomes allowed for.

Le droit de l’Union européenne appréhende les comportements d’entreprises en matière de prix par des règles antitrust et par une législation contre le dumping. Ces deux réglementations diffèrent à de nombreux égards. Elles poursuivent des objectifs différents : défense des intérêts de certains concurrents européens versus promotion de la libre concurrence au bénéfice des consommateurs. Cependant, toutes deux contribuent à protéger la loyauté de la concurrence (i.e. promotion d’une certaine homogéniété des conditions de concurrence). Elles appréhendent des pratiques tarifaires différentes : les marchés concernés sont définis différemment (produit concerné exporté depuis un pays tiers et produit similaire fabriqué par l’industrie de l’Union versus marché de produit et marché géographique en cause) et les caractéristiques des entreprises concernées sont également différentes (aucune forme d’accord entre entreprises ou de pouvoir de marché minimum requis par la législation antidumping) ; le dumping discriminatoire n’équivaut à aucun prix discriminatoire anticoncurrentiel, et le dumping à perte n’est pas l’équivalent du prix prédateur ni de tout autre prix bas anticoncurrentiel. Nonobstant leurs différences, les deux réglementations doivent coexister paisiblement. Pourtant, les opportunités de biais protectionnistes dans la détermination du dumping préjudiciable sont toujours nombreuses dans la législation antidumping et la pratique de la Commission. En outre, la mise en oeuvre de la législation antidumping peut être néfaste pour la concurrence dans le marché intérieur via l’incidence des procédures et des mesures antidumping et les effets anticoncurrentiels de certains comportements d’entreprises dans le cadre des procédures antidumping ou environnant ces dernières. De telles incidences nocives pour la concurrence sont déjà réduites par des dispositions telles que la règle du droit moindre et la clause d’intérêt public (intérêt de l’Union), mais pourraient et devraient l’être davantage. / European Union law addresses pricing practices of undertakings through antitrust provisions and an anti-dumping legislation. These two sets of regulations differ in many respects. They pursue different aims: protection of the interest of some European competitors versus promotion of free competition for the benefit o f consumers. However, they both hept to ensure fair competition (i.e. promotion of alevel playing field). They address different pricing practices: the markets concerned are differently defined (concerned product exported from one third country andsimilar product produced by the Union industry versus relevant product and geographic markets) and the characteristics of the undertakings concerned are also different (no sort of agreement between undertakings and no minimum market power required in anti-dumping law); price discrimination dumping in not equivalent to any anti-competitive price discrimination and below cost dumping is not equivalent to predatory pricing or to any other low anti-competitive price. Not with standing their differences, both sets of regulations have to coexist peacefully. Yet, opportunities of protectionist biases in the determination of injurious dumping are still numerous in the anti-dumping legislation and Commission’s practice. Moreover, the enforcementof the anti-dumping legislation may negatively affect competition in the internal market through the impact of the anti-dumping proceedings and measures and the anti-competitive effects of some undertakings’ behaviors within the ambit of, or surrounding the anti-dumping proceedings. Such harmful effects on competition of the anti-dumping action are already reduced by provisions such as the lesser duty rule and the public interest clause (Union interest), but could and should be further reduced.