What is the significance of the Keck and Mithouard case?

What is the significance of the Keck and Mithouard case?

This is known as predatory pricing. Keck and Mithouard (K & M) were prosecuted in France for selling goods at a price, which was lower than their actual purchase price (resale at a loss), contrary to the French law. The law did not ban sales at a loss by the manufacturer.

How did the Court of Justice change its interpretation of Article 34 TFEU in its decision in the Keck case?

The Court of Justice held that the French law was not incompatible with TEEC article 30 (now TFEU article 34) because the purpose was not to regulate trade. If a rule applies to all traders in the same manner, and affects them in the same way in law and in fact, it is lawful if it is merely a selling arrangement.

What established Keck?

In the case of Keck and Mithouard, 1993, the French law had prohibited selling goods at a price lower than the actual purchase price. Its purpose was to prevent ‘predatory pricing’, in the interest of free trade within the internal market.

Under which conditions does a certain selling arrangement fall outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU according to the Keck Judgement?

Importantly, the field of application of Article 34 of the TFEU is limited by the ‘Keck’ judgment, which states that certain selling arrangements fall outside the scope of that article, provided that they are non-discriminatory (i.e. they apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory, and affect …

What is a certain selling arrangement in EU law?

The ‘selling arrangement’ is a judicial device which removes national law. from the scrutiny of European Community law relating to the free movement. of goods. National provisions affecting the marketing of products may fall for. consideration as ‘selling arrangements’ where the treatment of the domestic.

What is the Keck exception?

[18] The decision in Keck effectively created an exception for certain selling arrangements that applied equally to all measures in fact and in law. This was not completely unprecedented (drawing from academic commentary[19] and case law[20] for its inspiration) and neither was its aim undesirable.