THE MANAGING DIRECTORS OF GUERLAIN S.A . ( CASE 253/78 ), PARFUMS ROCHAS S.A . ( CASE 1/79 ), LANVINS-PARFUMS S.A . ( CASE 2/79 ) AND NINA RICCI S.A R.L . ( CASE 3/79 ), CHARGING THEM WITH INFRINGING ARTICLE 37 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF THE FRENCH ORDER NO 45-1483 OF 30 JUNE 1945 ON PRICES , WHICH MAKES IT AN OFFENCE FOR ANY PRODUCER , TRADER , INDUSTRIALIST OR CRAFTSMAN , ' ' TO REFUSE TO FILL TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY AND ON TERMS COMPLYING WITH THE CUSTOMS OF THE TRADE , ORDERS BY PURCHASERS FOR PRODUCTS OR REQUESTS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES WHERE THOSE ORDERS OR REQUESTS ARE IN NO WAY IRREGULAR , COME FROM PURCHASERS IN GOOD FAITH AND THE SALE OF THE PRODUCTS OR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES IS NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW OR BY ANY REGULATION OF ANY PUBLIC AUTHORITY . ' ' THOSE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED FOLLOWING COMPLAINTS WITH CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES LODGED BY RETAILERS OF PERFUMERY PRODUCTS TO WHOM THE COMPANIES IN QUESTION HAD REFUSED TO SELL .
3 THE ACCUSED MAINTAINED BEFORE THE COURT MAKING THE REFERENCE THAT THE REFUSALS TO SELL GIVING RISE TO THE DISPUTE WERE JUSTIFIED IN PARTICULAR BY THE EXISTENCE OF SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS FOR THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION . THEY CLAIMED FURTHERMORE THAT , AS WAS SHOWN BY LETTERS DATED 28 OCTOBER 1975 ( GUERLAIN ), 26 MARCH 1976 ( PARFUMS ROCHAS ), 22 SEPTEMBER 1976 ( LANVIN-PARFUMS ) AND 20 JANUARY 1978 ( NINA RICCI ) SENT TO THEM BY THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR COMPETITION , THE AGREEMENTS UPON WHICH THOSE SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS WERE BASED HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES . THOSE LETTERS , WHICH WERE WORDED IN ALMOST IDENTICAL TERMS , INFORMED THE COMPANIES CONCERNED THAT , IN VIEW OF THE SMALL SHARE HELD BY EACH COMPANY IN THE MARKET IN PERFUMERY , BEAUTY PRODUCTS AND TOILETRIES AND THE PRESENCE IN THAT MARKET OF A FAIRLY LARGE NUMBER OF COMPETING ENTERPRISES OF COMPARABLE SIZE , ' ' THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THAT THERE IS NO LONGER ANY NEED , ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS KNOWN TO IT , FOR IT TO TAKE ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED AGREEMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE TREATY OF ROME . THE FILE ON THIS CASE MAY THEREFORE BE CLOSED . ' '
4 STATING THAT THOSE LETTERS MUST BE REGARDED AS DECISIONS APPLYING ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ), THE ACCUSED MAINTAINED THAT BY REASON OF THE PRE-EMINENCE OF COMMUNITY RULES THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES COULD NOT PROHIBIT , BY APPLYING NATIONAL LAW , RESTRICTIONS ON COMPETITION WHICH HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMISSION AS LAWFUL FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF COMMUNITY LAW .
5 CONSIDERING THAT IT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION REGARDING COMMUNITY LAW , THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE ORDERED THAT THERE BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THE EXCLUSIVE DEALING AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE