OF COMMUNITY LAW REQUIRING AN INTERPRETATION, HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE DISPUTE ( JUDGMENT OF 29 NOVEMBER 1978 IN CASE 83/78 PIGS MARKETING BOARD V REDMOND (( 1978 )) ECR 2347 ).
8 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE STATEMENT OF GROUNDS CONTAINED IN THE REFERENCE THAT THE COUR D' APPEL, RENNES, CONSIDERS THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR THE OPERATION IN FRANCE BY A TRADER OF A SALES AREA EXCEEDING 1 000 M2 OR 1 500 M2, DEPENDING ON THE POPULATION OF THE COMMUNE CONCERNED, "CLEARLY CONSTITUTES A RESTRICTION ON FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT, EVEN IF SUCH A RESTRICTION IS PROMPTED BY THE WISH TO PROTECT A CLASS OF TRADERS THAT IS THREATENED WITH EXTINCTION ".
9 IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NATIONAL COURT SEEKS TO DETERMINE WHETHER NATIONAL RULES SUCH AS THE FRENCH LAW ON PLANNING RULES APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL PREMISES ARE CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT . THE QUESTION PUT TO THE COURT MUST THEREFORE BE RE-FORMULATED SO AS TO CONCERN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS ON FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT, AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 52 OF THE EEC TREATY AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVES 68/363/EEC AND 68/364/EEC OF 15 OCTOBER 1968 IMPLEMENTING ARTICLE 52 IN RESPECT OF ACTIVITIES OF SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS IN RETAIL TRADE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1968 ( II ), PP . 496 AND 501 ).
10 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE REPLY TO BE GIVEN TO THAT QUESTION, IT SHOULD BE STRESSED THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT MR BEKAERT IS OF FRENCH NATIONALITY AND RESIDES IN FRANCE, WHERE HE MANAGES A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY OPERATING A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT, AS CONCESSIONNAIRE FOR A MAKE OF FRENCH CARS . THE PRESENT CASE THEREFORE CONCERNS A SITUATION PURELY INTERNAL TO A MEMBER STATE .
11 AS THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 12 FEBRUARY 1987 IN CASE 221/85 COMMISSION V KINGDOM OF BELGIUM (( 1987 )) ECR 719, WHICH ITSELF CONCERNED THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 52 OF THE EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 52 IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT ALL NATIONALS OF MEMBER STATES WHO ESTABLISH THEMSELVES IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, EVEN IF THAT ESTABLISHMENT IS ONLY SECONDARY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURSUING ACTIVITIES THERE AS A SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON RECEIVE THE SAME TREATMENT AS NATIONALS OF THAT STATE AND IT PROHIBITS, AS A RESTRICTION ON FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT, ANY DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY .
12 THE ABSENCE OF ANY ELEMENT GOING BEYOND A PURELY NATIONAL SETTING IN A GIVEN CASE THEREFORE MEANS, IN MATTERS OF FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH A SITUATION .
13 THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ASKED BY THE COUR D' APPEL, RENNES, MUST THEREFORE BE THAT ARTICLE 52 OF THE EEC TREATY AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVES 68/363/EEC AND 68/364/EEC IMPLEMENTING ARTICLE 52 IN RESPECT OF ACTIVITIES OF SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS IN RETAIL TRADE DO NOT APPLY TO SITUATIONS WHICH ARE PURELY INTERNAL TO