1 BY TWO JUDGMENTS OF 9 MARCH 1984 , WHICH WERE RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 22 MARCH 1984 , THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE ( REGIONAL COURT ), VERDUN-SUR-MEUSE , REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION , WHICH WAS IDENTICAL IN BOTH CASES , CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 3 , 5 AND 30 OF THE EEC TREATY , IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER NATIONAL RULES IMPOSING A MINIMUM PRICE ON THE SALE OF FUEL TO CONSUMERS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW .
2 THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT AGAINST MR CHABAUD AND MR REMY WHO ARE DIRECTORS OF SUPERMARKETS OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PETROL STATIONS AND WHO ARE CHARGED WITH HAVING , IN MAY , JUNE AND JULY 1983 , OFFERED FUEL FOR SALE AT PRICES BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICE FIXED BY THE RULES WHICH WERE IN FORCE AT THAT TIME .
3 THE ACCUSED MAINTAINED THAT ARTICLE 4 OF MINISTERIAL DECREE NO 82-13/A OF 29 APRIL 1982 CONCERNING RETAIL SELLING PRICES FOR FUEL , ON WHICH THE MINIMUM PRICE AT ISSUE IS BASED , IS CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW , IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 3 ( F ), 5 AND 30 OF THE EEC TREATY .
4 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , VERDUN , CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING : ' IS THE DECREE ISSUED ON 29 APRIL 1982 BY THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS AND THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR ENERGY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC PROHIBITING THE SALE IN FRANCE OF REGULAR AND SUPER-GRADE PETROL AT A PRICE LOWER THAN THAT FIXED PERIODICALLY BY MINISTERIAL DECISION CONSISTENT WITH OR CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 3 , 5 AND 30 OF THE TREATY OF ROME OF 25 MARCH 1957? '
5 IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 29 JANUARY 1985 IN CASE 231/83 ( CULLET V CENTRE LECLERC TOULOUSE ( 1985 ) ECR 315 ) THE COURT HAS ALREADY EXAMINED THE SAME QUESTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE SAME NATIONAL RULES . THE DETAILS OF THE RULES WERE GIVEN TO THE COURT ON THAT OCCASION AND IT WAS THEN ABLE TO GIVE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW .
6 AT THE END OF THAT EXAMINATION THE COURT CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS : ARTICLES 3 ( F ) AND 5 OF THE EEC TREATY DO NOT PROHIBIT NATIONAL RULES PROVIDING FOR A MINIMUM PRICE TO BE FIXED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE RETAIL SALE OF FUEL ; ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY PROHIBITS SUCH RULES WHERE THE MINIMUM PRICE IS FIXED ON THE BASIS SOLELY OF THE EX-REFINERY PRICES OF THE NATIONAL REFINERIES AND WHERE THOSE EX-REFINERY PRICES ARE IN TURN LINKED TO THE CEILING PRICE WHICH IS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS SOLELY OF THE COST PRICES OF NATIONAL REFINERIES WHEN THE EUROPEAN FUEL RATES ARE MORE THAN 8% ABOVE OR BELOW THOSE PRICES .
7 SINCE THERE APPEARS TO BE NO NEW FACTOR IN THIS CASE , REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE , WITH REGARD TO THE REPLIES TO BE GIVEN TO THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , VERDUN-SUR-MEUSE , AND TO THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED TO THOSE REPLIES , TO THE TEXT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED JUDGMENT OF 29 JANUARY 1985 , A COPY OF WHICH IS ANNEXED HERETO .