215/84 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber)25 September 1985^noteIn Case 215/84REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal de grande instance [Regional Court], Versailles, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings brought before that court byProcureur de la République [Public Prosecutor]and the following civil parties :Syndicat national des gérants libres (SNGL) [National Association of Independent Managers],Chambre syndicale nationale du commerce et de la réparation automobile (CSNCRA) [National Automobile Trade and Repair Association],Bernard Thomas, Jacques Bruneau, Michel le Breton, Pierre Parent, Gérard Guillemin, Guy Loiselier, Eduard Szeląg,againstMarie-Hélène Ferey, née Héricotte,THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)composed of: G. Bosco, President of Chamber, P. Pescatore, T. Koopmans, K. Bahlmann and T. F. O'Higgins, Judges,Advocate General : Sir Gordon SlynnRegistrar: D. Louterman, Administratorafter considering the observations submitted on behalf of:— Syndicat national des gérants libres, a civil party intervening in the main proceedings, by J. Thréard, of the Paris Bar,— the French Government by S. C. de Margerie, acting as Agent, assisted by I. Knock, Administrator,— the Commission of the European Communities by D. Jacob, acting as Agent, assisted by N. Coutrelis, a member of its Legal Department,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 14 May 1985,gives the following

Judgment

(The account of the facts and issues which is contained in the complete text of the judgment is not reproduced)

Decision

1By judgment of 6 July 1984, which was received at the Court on 20 August 1984, the Tribunal de grande instance [Regional Court], Versailles, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question concerning the interpretation of Articles 3 (f), 5, 30, 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty, in order to enable it to determine whether national rules imposing a minimum price on the sale of fuel to consumers are compatible with Community law.

2The question was raised in the context of criminal proceedings brought against Marie-Hélène Ferey née Héricotte in her capacity as managing director of ERG Carburants SA which operates petrol stations. Marie-Hélène Ferey is charged with having, in August and December 1983, offered fuel for sale at prices below the minimum prices fixed by the rules which were in force at that time.

3The accused did not dispute the substance of the facts alleged against her but asked to be acquitted on the ground that the minimum prices which she had failed to apply were based on Ministerial Decrees Nos 82-13/A of 29 April 1982 and 83-58/A of 9 November 1983 concerning minimum retail selling prices for fuel, the provisions of which, she maintained, were in conflict with Community law.

4In those circumstances the Tribunal de grande instance, Versailles, considered it necessary to refer to the Court of Justice the following question for a preliminary ruling:‘Must Articles 3 (f), 5, 30, 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty of 25 March 1957 be interpreted as prohibiting the adoption by a Member State of legislation or rules introducing a minimum-price system for the retail sale of “regular” and “super” petrol?’

5The questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 3 (f), 5, 30, 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty have already been examined by the Court in its judgment of 29 January 1985 in Case 231/83 (Cullet v Centre Leclerc Toulouse [1985] ECR 315). The price system at issue in the main proceedings is the same as that which gave rise to Case 231/83, except that Ministerial Decree No 83-58/A of 9 November 1983, which is applicable to part of the facts of this case, increased, with regard to regular and super-grade petrol, the margin within which the minimum retail selling price fixed under the rules in force could be reduced. However, with regard to the application of Community law, that factor does not raise problems which differ from those resolved by the aforementioned judgment of 29 January 1985.

6In that judgment the Court came to the following conclusions:— Articles 3 (f), 5, 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty do not prohibit national rules providing for a minimum price to be fixed by the national authorities for the retail sale of fuel;— Article 30 of the EEC Treaty prohibits such rules where the minimum price is fixed on the basis solely of the ex-refinery prices of the national refineries and where those ex-refinery prices are in turn linked to the ceiling price which is calculated on the basis solely of the cost prices of national refineries when the European fuel rates are more than 8% above or below those prices.

7Since there appears to be no new factor in this case reference should be made, with regard to the replies to be given to the Tribunal de grande instance, Versailles, and to the considerations which led to those replies, to the text of the aforementioned judgment of 29 January 1985, a copy of which is annexed hereto.

Costs

8The costs incurred by the French Government and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, a step in the proceedings brought before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)in answer to the question referred to it by the Tribunal de grande instance, Versailles, by judgment of 6 July 1984, hereby rules:

(1).Articles 3 (f), 5, 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty do not prohibit national rules providing for a minimum price to be fixed by the national authorities for the retail sale of fuel.

(2).Article 30 of the EEC Treaty prohibits such rules where the minimum price is fixed on the basis solely of the ex-refinery prices of the national refineries and where those ex-refinery prices are in turn linked to the ceiling price which is calculated on the basis solely of the cost prices of national refineries when the European fuel rates are more than 8% above or below those prices.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 25 September 1985.