What Keck and Mithouard should have said: Preventing substantial barriers to market access

Niklas Nachtnebel*, Antoine Langrée, Fraser Rodger, Niamh Nic Shuibhne

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract / Description of output

This rewriting of Keck and Mithouard (joined cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 ECLI:EU:C:1993:905) is based on three categories of measures having equivalent effect: 1) national measures which disadvantage imported goods, 2) product requirements and 3) indistinctly applicable measures capable of substantially impeding the access of goods to a Member State market. Thus, instead of the category of national measures relating to certain selling arrangements, Nachtnebel, Langrée and Rodger's judgment emphasises that national measures which do not discriminate directly or indirectly, and which do not qualify as "product requirements" in the sense of Cassis de Dijon (case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein ECLI:EU:C:1979:42), must substantially impede market access in order to qualify as measures having equivalent effect. The resulting judgment roughly follows the approach of AG Jacobs in Leclerc-Siplec (case C-412/93 Leclerc-Siplec v TF1 and M6 ECLI:EU:C:1994:393).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)363-372
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 13 Jul 2023

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

  • free movement of goods
  • internal market
  • measures having equivalent effect
  • certain selling arrangements


Dive into the research topics of 'What Keck and Mithouard should have said: Preventing substantial barriers to market access'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this