C-188/86

Mr President, subject to a common organization of the Members of the Court, agricultural markets is in question, the assessment must take into account the particular features of that organization'. 2 I — 1- The wording of the question referred to the Court by the Cour d'appel (Court of Appeal), Paris, calls for some preliminary observations. 5. The question is therefore whether the abovementioned Community rules prohibit the national authorities from requiring 2. In proceedings under Article 177 of the retailers to observe a price limit for the EEC Treaty, it is not for the Court to give a retail sale of beef and veal, calculated on the ruling on the compatibility of the national basis of the wholesale price, to which must rules referred to by the Cour d'appel with be added the costs of transportation to the Community law. The question referred for a butcher's shop, calculated at a flat rate, a preliminary ruling by the French court must fixed gross profit margin and certain duties therefore be examined from the point of which are listed exhaustively. view of interpretation of the relevant Community rules so as to enable the national court to determine itself the II — 6. First, as regards the question of the question of compatibility. ' scope to be attributed in this regard to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty, which is designed to achieve the objective stated in 3. In the present case, the question to be Article 3 (f), it must be observed, as was determined is whether the provisions of held by the Court in the Cullet judgment, Articles 30 and 85 of the EEC Treaty that rules such as those concerned in this referred to by the Cour d'appel preclude a case which Member State from fixing certain components of the retail selling price of beef and veal. 'are not intended to compel suppliers and retailers to conclude agreements or to take any other action of the kind referred to in 4. In order to supply the national court Article 85 (1) of the Treaty' with all relevant criteria for interpretation, the scope of that question must be extended to encompass the interpretation of the limits but which, arising in such matters from Regulation No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal. On this point the 'on the contrary, . . . entrust responsibility Court has held that: for fixing prices to the public authorities'

HI — 7. However, intervention by the IV—10. As regards importation costs, it is national authorities at the retail price stage stated in the Court's judgment of 5 June of products covered by a common market 1985 in Roelstraete that if that profit margin organization is, in certain circumstances, the existence of which must be established by the national court, likely to impede the 'is fixed so as to incorporate import costs normal marketing of those products and which the retailer may have incurred',5 thus to jeopardize the free movement of those goods, guaranteed by Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Article 22 of Regulation No 805/68, as well as the objectives and the national system of price control may be functioning of the common organization of regarded as constituting a measure having the market in beef and veal. an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports prohibited by Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. 8. The case-law of the Court has set out the limits to which the Member States are subject in this regard. As a general rule, the 11. Such is the case in particular where a fixing by a Member State of a retailer's fixed profit margin is applicable irrespective maximum gross profit margin on his selling of the supply market — whether the price interferes with the application of the domestic market or the market in another aforesaid Community rules if Member State. Unlike retailers who obtain their supplies of meat, including meat imported from the Community, from a national wholesaler, the retailer who 'the purchase prices taken into consideration imports his goods directly from another do not take into account marketing and Member State will find in such circum- importation costs which the retailer has in stances that his net profit is reduced by fact borne both at the supply stage and at an amount corresponding to the costs that of sale to consumers or where the gross of importation, which might ultimately profit margin itself is fixed at a level which, discourage such transactions.6 taking into account the detailed rules for the calculation of purchase prices, is not capable of ensuring that the retailer obtains 12. Where the profit margin incorporates fair remuneration for his activity'.4 the costs of obtaining supplies on the national market, there is also 'a risk, or at least a potential risk, [that this] may have 9. In the present case it must first be an effect' on the mechanisms of price determined whether under the contested formation introduced by Regulation No rules, which impose a fixed profit margin on 805/68 inasmuch as those costs retailers, the purchase price of the products in question takes into account the actual costs of transportation — whether these are 'may vary according to, inter alia, the merely the costs of obtaining supplies on distance between the centres of supply and the domestic market or the costs of the place where each retailer carries on his importation — or, on the contrary, incor- business'. porates them on a flat-rate basis in the maximum gross profit margin. 5 — Case 116/84 Roelstraete [1985] ECR 1705, paragraph 21 at p. 1718. 4 — Kefir and Dentelle, cited above, paragraph 10 at p. 114. 6 — Roelstraete, paragraphs 21 and 22 at pp. 1718 and 1719.

V — 16. The question submitted by the Cour d'appel, Paris, should therefore be answered as follows:

(1) Article 3 (f) and Article 85 of the EEC Treaty do not prohibit Member States from fixing a maximum price for the retail sale of beef and veal.

(2) National rules regulating the retail prices of beef and veal which require retailers not to sell their products at a price exceeding the wholesale price plus a flat-rate amount representing the costs of transportation and a fixed gross profit margin :

(i) constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction contrary to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and to Article 22 of Regulation No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef

7 - Roclstraete, paragraph 24 at p. 1719. 4 — Refer and Delmelle, cited above, paragraph 10 at p. 114.

OPINION OF MR DARMON —CASE 188/86