The judgement given by the Court in Vassilopoulos is one that has its merits. The case does not completely defy the rule in Keck altogether rather, AG Maduro in his opinion acknowledges the disadvantages regarding the certainties and attempts to clarify the rule of law in Vassilopoulos. The solutions for the uncertainty of Keck was clarified to an extent without actually discarding the validity of it altogether. This saves Keck from any means of cancellation and manages to protect the Court from diverging itself. Furthermore, the judgement given was well understood and AG Maduro chose to discard the usage of the term ‘selling arrangements’ which in Keck, caused a degree of confusion. This action is worth praising but it could also insist that the Court refused to tackle the issue head on. However, a notable merit of this judgement is how the Court paired it within well known concepts of market-access and direct or indirect discrimination while at the same time being consistent with Keck. These concepts are well-understood and it gives an opportunity for the Court to apply the law with a greater degree of clarity and ease. With that being said, Vassilopoulos is a case that is worth applauding for such reason, especially at a time where there was massive uncertainty surrounding the rule of law regarding MEQRs. Previously, it was argued that Keck placed too much emphasis on factual and legal equality at the expense of market access. The same could not be said in