C-201/84

JUDGMENT OF 25. 9. 1985 — CASE 201/84

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 25 September 1985 *

In Case 201/84

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal de grande instance [Regional Court], Orléans, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings brought before that court by

Procureur de la République [Public Prosecutor]

against

J.-P. Gontier, the accused in the main proceedings, by A. Sacaze, of the Orleans Bar, and P. Jousset, of the Laval Bar,

the French Government by J. C. Antonetti and S. C. de Margerie, acting as Agents, 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

* Language of the Case: French.

3 The accused did not dispute the substance of the facts alleged against him but asked to be acquitted on the ground that the maximum discounts with which he had failed to comply were based on Ministerial Decree No 83-58/A of 9 November 1983 concerning retail fuel prices, whereas those rules were, he main­ tained, incompatible with Community law, in particular Articles 3 (f), 5 and 30 of the EEC Treaty and were not justified on any of the grounds set out in Article 36 of that Treaty.

4 In those circumstances the Tribunal de grande instance, Orléans, considered it necessary to refer to the Court of Justice the following question 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 introduction in a Member State, by the adoption of laws or regulations, of minimum sale prices for regular-grade and high-grade petrol?

JUDGMENT OF 25. 9. 1985 — CASE 201/84

Can the fixing of such minimum prices constitute a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty and may it be regarded as justified on grounds of public policy within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty?'

5 The questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 3 (f) and 5 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 the facts of these cases, 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.

Costs

9 The costs incurred by the French Government and 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.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Tribunal de grande instance, Orléans, by judgment of 27 June 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;

G. Bosco P. Heim President of the Fourth Chamber Registrar