Is the minimum price a restriction?
Under Dassonville, the minimum price requirement would constitute an indistinctly applicable ‘MEQR.’ Indistinctly applicable measures occur in price fixing shown by Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung . It demonstrated ‘a system of fixed sales prices… could impede market access for products from other member states’ more than domestic. The Cassis de Dijon ‘rule of reason’ is applicable as its indirect. One of the mandatory requirements is ‘the fairness of commercial transactions.’ The argued justification by the authority, of fair competition and level playing field for smaller producers, comes under this. Moreover, under Keck, this minimum price requirement is a selling arrangement, which is not caught under Article 34.
Furthermore, Keck outlines equal and dual burdens. An equal burden is a selling arrangement with the same burden in law and fact, for both domestic and imported goods. A dual burden is when selling arrangements have the same burden in law, but, are different in fact. The minimum price requirement is most likely to fall under the latter, as it doesn’t pose a larger burden than on domestic producers. Thus, as the equal burden doesn’t come under Article 34, the minimum price requirement is not a breach.