C-267/91, C-268/91. The defendants were prosecuted under French law for selling goods at a loss. Their defence was that French law was incompatible with Art. 28 of the ECTreaty, as interpreted in the case of CassisDeDijon1979, as it would have the practical effect of limiting the sale of imported products. Of course, the law limited equally the sale of domestic products, but it was clear from Cassis that this, in itself, would not prevent the law falling foul of Art. 28.
The ECJ sought to clarify the Cassis ruling by claiming that it applied only to `market access rules', that is, rules made by member states that regulated the access of products to a particular market. The French restriction on selling at a loss was a `selling arrangement', and therefore not within the scope of Cassis.
See AbolitionOfQuantitativeRestrictions for a discussion.
Law glossary index
©1994-2006 Kevin Boone, all rights reserved