INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS, CONSIDERED THAT THE DISPUTE BEFORE HIM RAISED QUESTIONS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW AND THEREFORE DECIDED TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS AND REFER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
"( A ) ARE THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 22*(3)*(E ) AND ( F ) OF THE BELGIAN ROYAL DECREE OF 30 JUNE 1966, WHICH PROVIDE THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO FAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICE FOR AN APPROVED TRAVEL AGENCY ( THAT IS TO SAY, A TRAVEL AGENCY HOLDING THE AUTHORIZATION PROVIDED FOR IN THE LAW OF 21 APRIL 1965 ):
( 1 ) TO OFFER PRICES AND TARIFFS OTHER THAN THOSE AGREED OR IMPOSED BY LAW,
( 2 ) TO SHARE COMMISSIONS, GIVE REBATES OR OFFER ADVANTAGES, IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER, ON CONDITIONS WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO CUSTOMARY PRACTICE,
COMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 85*(1 ) OF THE EEC TREATY, IN PARTICULAR WHERE IT APPEARS THAT ACTS WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO FAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICE ARE PROHIBITED BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 54 OF THE BELGIAN LAW OF 14 JULY 1971 ON TRADE PRACTICES?
( B ) ARE AGREEMENTS ADOPTED BY TRAVEL AGENTS ON THE BASIS OF THOSE PROVISIONS COMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 85*(1 ) OF THE EEC TREATY?
( C ) ARE THE ABOVEMENTIONED PROVISIONS OF BELGIAN DOMESTIC LAW AND ANY AGREEMENTS ADOPTED IN IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF COMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLES 30 AND 34 OF THE EEC TREATY?"
QUESTION A
9 ALTHOUGH THE FIRST QUESTION REFERS EXPRESSLY ONLY TO ARTICLE 85*(1 ) OF THE TREATY, IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD, AS THE BELGIAN AND FRENCH GOVERNMENTS AND THE COMMISSION HAVE SUGGESTED, AS SEEKING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS OR REGULATIONS OF A MEMBER STATE REQUIRING TRAVEL AGENTS TO OBSERVE THE PRICES AND TARIFFS FOR TRAVEL SET BY TOUR OPERATORS, PROHIBITING THEM FROM SHARING COMMISSIONS PAID IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF SUCH TRAVEL WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS OR GRANTING REBATES TO THEIR CUSTOMERS AND REGARDING SUCH ACTS AS CONTRARY TO FAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICE ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 3*(F ) AND 85, OF THE EEC TREATY .
10 AS THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD ( SEE, MOST RECENTLY, THE JUDGMENT OF 30 APRIL 1986 IN JOINED CASES 209 TO 213/84 MINISTERE PUBLIC V ASJES (( 1986 )) ECR 1425 ), WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT ARTICLES 85 AND 86 OF THE TREATY CONCERN THE CONDUCT OF UNDERTAKINGS AND NOT LAWS OR REGULATIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES, THE TREATY NEVERTHELESS IMPOSES A DUTY ON MEMBER STATES NOT TO ADOPT OR MAINTAIN IN FORCE ANY MEASURE WHICH COULD DEPRIVE THOSE PROVISIONS OF THEIR EFFECTIVENESS . THE COURT HAS HELD THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, IN PARTICULAR, IF A MEMBER STATE WERE TO REQUIRE OR FAVOUR THE ADOPTION OF AGREEMENTS, DECISIONS OR CONCERTED PRACTICES CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 85 OR TO REINFORCE THEIR EFFECTS .
11 IN ORDER TO REPLY IN A USEFUL MANNER TO THE NATIONAL COURT IT IS NECESSARY FIRST OF ALL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE