EU Law Keck Case Note

HideShow resource information
Keck Intro
'Criminal proceedings against Keck and Mithouard' - concerned with FMOG, selling arrangements under Art 34, are rules too rigid?
1 of 10
Keck Facts
The pair prosecuted for infringing French legislation - couldn't resell unaltered products at a loss, question to CJEU of whether this was MEQR under Dassonville, and prohibited by ART 34
2 of 10
Keck Ruling #1
CJEU - measure prohibiting resale at loss was 'non-discrim selling arrangement', were not MEQRs and not prohibited
3 of 10
Keck Ruling #2
Court distinguished product requirements in Cassis to selling arrangements (explain what they are), prod requirements prohibited, sell arrangements not, as long as applied equally and had equal affect on dom/non-dom products
4 of 10
Keck Developing the Law
Debate over whether all selling arrangements were non-discrim, and so whether they should all be okay under ART 34,
5 of 10
Keck JA #1
Rhodri Thompson, 'Life after Keck: Article 30 and the Leclerc-Siplec Case', 1991: Highlights issues of total prohibition of motor cars, non-dom producers dissuaded, doesn't affect Dom producers, establishing themselves
6 of 10
Keck Developing the Law #2
Thompson reinforced Advocate General Jacobs in Lecler-Siplec who thought that 2 categories rigid - needed more flexible, some say Keck already flexible
7 of 10
Keck JA #2
Panos Koutakos, 'On groceries, alcohol and olive oil: more on free movement of goods after Keck', 2002: wording of Keck and sub case law proves it was meant to be flexible
8 of 10
Keck Developing the Law #3
De Agostini: Brought selling arrangements under ART 34 where they cut off market access, Gourmet settled AGJ's worries indistinctly applicable measures came under where they partitioned national markets
9 of 10
Keck Conclusion
Undoubtedly a significant case, while there are doubts over it being too rigid, it does seem that it is flexible enough to bring selling arrangements under national law
10 of 10

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Keck Facts

Back

The pair prosecuted for infringing French legislation - couldn't resell unaltered products at a loss, question to CJEU of whether this was MEQR under Dassonville, and prohibited by ART 34

Card 3

Front

Keck Ruling #1

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Keck Ruling #2

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Keck Developing the Law

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar European Studies resources:

See all European Studies resources »See all EU Law resources »