271/84 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber)6 February 1986^noteIn Joined Cases 271 to 274/84 and 6 and 7/85REFERENCES to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the tribunal de grande instance [Regional Court], Roche-sur-Yon, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings brought before that court byProcureur de la Republique [Public Prosecutor] and directeur départemental de la concurrence et de la consommation [Regional Director for Competition and Consumer Affairs]against(1) J. Chiron and Others,(2) M. Byrotheau and H. Vincendeau,and the defendants in civil law, Fontenay Distribution SA and Shedis Avenue SA,THE COURT (First Chamber)composed of: R. Joliét, President of Chamber, G. Bosco and T. Koopmans, Judges,Advocate General: Sir Gordon SlynnRegistrar: P. Heimafter considering the observations submitted on behalf of— Mr Byrotheau, the accused in the main proceedings in Case 6/85, by Raymond Belin, of the Roche-sur-Yon Bar,— the Commission of the European Communities by its Legal Adviser, R.-C. Béraud, 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 12 December 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 judgments of 8 October 1984 and 19 November 1984, which were received at the Court on 20 November 1984 and 14 January 1985 respectively, the tribunal de grande instance, Roche-sur-Yon, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling identical questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 3 (f), 5 and 30 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 questions were raised in the context of criminal proceedings brought against Mr Chiron, managing director of Centre Leclerc, Montaigu (Case 271/84), Mr Perouse, managing director of Centre Leclerc, Fontenay-le-Comte (Case 272/84), Mr Jaud, managing director, and Mr Prouteau, accountant, of Sodiroche SA, Roche-sur-Yon (Joined Cases 273 and 274/84), Mr Byrotheau, managing director of Intermarché SA, Fontenay-le-Comte (Case 6/85) and Mr Vincendeau, managing director of Shedis Avenue SA, Les Herbiers (Case 7/85). The aforementioned persons are accused, in their stated capacities, inter alia, of having charged unlawful prices by selling or offering for sale fuel at prices below the minimum price fixed by the rules concerning fuel prices.

3The accused did not dispute the substance of the facts alleged against them but asked to be acquitted on the ground that the French rules concerning fuel prices, in particular Ministerial Decrees Nos 82-12 and 82-13/A of 29 April 1982, were in conflict with Community law and therefore inapplicable.

4In those circumstances the tribunal de grande instance, Roche-sur-Yon, considered it necessary to refer to the Court of Justice the following questions for a preliminary ruling:‘Must Articles 3 (f) and 5 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European Economic Community be interpreted as prohibiting the establishment in a Member State, by means of laws or regulations, of minimum selling prices for “regular” and “super” petrol?Can the fixing of such minimum prices constitute a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having the equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty?’

5In its judgment of 29 January 1985 in Case 231/83 (Cullet v Centre Ledere Toulouse, [1985] ECR 305) the Court has already examined the same questions which were raised in the context of proceedings relating to the same national rules. The details of the rules were given to the Court on that occasion and it was then able to give an interpretation of the relevant provisions of Community law.

6At the end of that examination the Court came to the following conclusions:— Articles 3 (f) and 5 of the EEC Teaty 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 the present case reference should be made, with regard to the replies to be given to the tribunal de grande instance, Roche-sur-Yon, 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 Commission of the European Communities, which has 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 (First Chamber),in answer to the questions referred to it by the tribunal de grande instance, Roche-sur-Yon, by judgments of 8 October 1984 and 19 November 1984, hereby rules:

(1).Articles 3 (f) and 5 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 6 February 1986.