Keck and Mithouard
National rules restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements are not caught by article 34, as long as they apply to all traders and affect domestic and imported goods in the same way.
Facts
Mr Keck and Mr Mithouard were prosecuted in France for selling goods at a loss, which was prohibited by French law. They argued that the law was contrary to the Treaty rules on free movement of goods, because it deprived traders of a method of sales promotion, and so might reduce the volume of sales of imported goods.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the French law was not contrary to the Treaty. Noting that traders were increasingly invoking the free movement rules to challenge any rules that limited their commercial freedom, the Court said that, contrary to what had previously been decided, the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder trade within the meaning of Dassonville, so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. Such rules fall outside article 34 altogether.
Related cases on free movement of goods
- Commission v Denmark (Danish bottles) Case 302/86, [1988] ECR 4607
- Commission v France (Spanish strawberries) Case C-265/95, [1997] ECR I-6959
- Commission v Germany (Beer purity) Case 178/84, [1987] ECR 1227
- Commission v Ireland (Buy Irish) Case 249/81, [1982] ECR 4005
- Commission v Italy (Art treasures) Case 7/68, [1968] ECR 423
- Commission v Italy (Motorcycle trailers) Case C-110/05, [2009] ECR I-519
- Conegate Ltd v HM Customs & Excise Case 121/85, [1986] ECR 1007
- Deutscher Apothekerverband eV v 0800 DocMorris NV Case C-322/01, [2003] ECR I-14887
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
