Question

Consten, a French company, had exclusive rights to import and distribute German Grundig's electronic products into France. One of the competitors started bringing "parallel imports" into France illegally, importing Grundig product bought from a foreign supplier. Which of the following does not represent an action taken by different legal bodies?

A) Consten's complaint was upheld by two French courts.
B) The Paris Court of Appeals suspended the judgment of the French courts.
C) The Paris Court of Appeal's judgment was based on pending a ruling by the European Commission.
D) The European Commission ruled against Consten on the grounds that territorial protection proved to be damaging to the Common Market.
E) The European Commission ruled that German Grundig was in violation of the laws of the Common Market.

Answer 1

The European Commission ruling against German Grundig for violations of Common Market laws is the least likely action taken by legal bodies since it would typically be Consten's practices, not Grundig's, scrutinized under EU competition law.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question revolves around the actions taken by legal bodies in response to the exclusive distribution rights of Consten, a French company, for importing and distributing German Grundig's electronic products, and a competitor's illegal parallel imports into France. To identify which action does not represent an action taken by different legal bodies, we need to consider the context of European Union law, particularly to the principles of free trade and competition within the Common Market. It is already known that the European Commission ruled against Consten and found that territorial protections were contrary to the objectives of the Common Market.

Based on the given options, the option least likely to represent an actual legal action is "The European Commission ruled that German Grundig was in violation of the laws of the Common Market." Since Consten was the French distributor seeking to maintain exclusivity against parallel imports, it would be uncharacteristic for the European Commission to rule against Grundig on these grounds, especially when it is typically the restrictive practices of the distributor, not the manufacturer, that are scrutinized under EU competition law.