Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 November 2012 — Fontaine

(Case C‑603/11)

‛Competition — Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Supplementary health insurance — Mutual companies entering into state health service agreements with the practitioners of their choice — Difference in treatment — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Competition — Community rules — Obligations of the Member States — National legislation requiring or favouring the formation of cartels or permitting undertakings to abuse a dominant position — Not permissible (Art. 4(3), TEU; Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU) (see paras 10-12)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition — Lack of precision in that respect — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(a)) (see paras 14, 15, 18-21, 24-26)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Request which does not set out the reasons for making a reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFUE; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2) and 94(c)) (see paras 16, 17, 22)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juridiction de Proximité, Chartres — Interpretation of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — Competition — National legislation prohibiting mutual companies providing supplementary health insurance from varying their benefits according to the conditions for issuing certificates and the services provided — Prohibition on the mutual companies entering into state health service agreements with practitioners of their choice — Difference of treatment in relation to other health insurance companies and institutions governed by the Code des Assurances or the Code de la Sécurité Sociale — Restrictions.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Juge de proximité, Chartres, by decision of 17 November 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 November 2012 — Fontaine

(Case C‑603/11)

‛Competition — Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Supplementary health insurance — Mutual companies entering into state health service agreements with the practitioners of their choice — Difference in treatment — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Competition — Community rules — Obligations of the Member States — National legislation requiring or favouring the formation of cartels or permitting undertakings to abuse a dominant position — Not permissible (Art. 4(3), TEU; Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU) (see paras 10-12)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition — Lack of precision in that respect — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(a)) (see paras 14, 15, 18-21, 24-26)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Request which does not set out the reasons for making a reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFUE; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2) and 94(c)) (see paras 16, 17, 22)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juridiction de Proximité, Chartres — Interpretation of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — Competition — National legislation prohibiting mutual companies providing supplementary health insurance from varying their benefits according to the conditions for issuing certificates and the services provided — Prohibition on the mutual companies entering into state health service agreements with practitioners of their choice — Difference of treatment in relation to other health insurance companies and institutions governed by the Code des Assurances or the Code de la Sécurité Sociale — Restrictions.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Juge de proximité, Chartres, by decision of 17 November 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.