For a restriction of a Convention right to be justified, it is not enough for it to have a sound legal basis and to pursue a legitimate aim. Restrictions of derogable Convention rights also must be shown to be ’necessary in a democratic society’ or ’proportionate’. Over time the Court itself has also defined a variety of specific tests and formulas to give shape to the tests of necessity and proportionality, which are all addressed in this chapter. The general test of necessity is explored first, paying special attention to the related pressing social need test, the ’relevant and sufficient’test and the least intrusive means test. Furthermore, the chapter discusses the fair balance test (a variant of proportionality in the strict sence) and some related tests, such as the individual and excessive burden test and core rights review. Attention is also paid to the related question of whether balancing should always be conducted on an individual and concrete basis on the national level, or whether blanket rules may sometimes suffice. Lastly, it is explored how procedural review can complement the Court’s substantive reasonableness review of restrictions.