1 BY JUDGMENT OF 6 JULY 1984 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 20 AUGUST 1984 , THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE ( REGIONAL COURT ), VERSAILLES , REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 3 ( F ), 5 , 30 , 85 AND 86 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 MARIE-HELENE FEREY NEE HERICOTTE IN HER CAPACITY AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ERG CARBURANTS SA WHICH OPERATES PETROL STATIONS . MARIE-HELENE FEREY IS CHARGED WITH HAVING , IN AUGUST AND DECEMBER 1983 , OFFERED FUEL FOR SALE AT PRICES BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICES FIXED BY THE RULES WHICH WERE IN FORCE AT THAT TIME .
3 THE ACCUSED DID NOT DISPUTE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FACTS ALLEGED AGAINST HER BUT ASKED TO BE ACQUITTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE MINIMUM PRICES WHICH SHE HAD FAILED TO APPLY WERE BASED ON MINISTERIAL DECREES NOS 82-13/A OF 29 APRIL 1982 AND 83-58/A OF 9 NOVEMBER 1983 CONCERNING MINIMUM RETAIL SELLING PRICES FOR FUEL , THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH , SHE MAINTAINED , WERE IN CONFLICT WITH COMMUNITY LAW .
4 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , VERSAILLES , CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING : ' MUST ARTICLES 3 ( F ), 5 , 30 , 85 AND 86 OF THE EEC TREATY OF 25 MARCH 1957 BE INTERPRETED AS PROHIBITING THE ADOPTION BY A MEMBER STATE OF LEGISLATION OR RULES INTRODUCING A MINIMUM-PRICE SYSTEM FOR THE RETAIL SALE OF ' ' REGULAR ' ' AND ' ' SUPER ' ' PETROL? '
5 THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 3 ( F ), 5 , 30 , 85 AND 86 OF THE EEC TREATY HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 29 JANUARY 1985 IN CASE 231/83 ( CULLET V CENTRE LECLERC TOULOUSE ( 1985 ) ECR 315 ). THE PRICE SYSTEM AT ISSUE IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS IS THE SAME AS THAT WHICH GAVE RISE TO CASE 231/83 , EXCEPT THAT MINISTERIAL DECREE NO 83-58/A OF 9 NOVEMBER 1983 , WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO PART OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE , INCREASED , WITH REGARD TO REGULAR AND SUPER-GRADE PETROL , THE MARGIN WITHIN WHICH THE MINIMUM RETAIL SELLING PRICE FIXED UNDER THE RULES IN FORCE COULD BE REDUCED . HOWEVER , WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW , THAT FACTOR DOES NOT RAISE PROBLEMS WHICH DIFFER FROM THOSE RESOLVED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED JUDGMENT OF 29 JANUARY 1985 .
6 IN THAT JUDGMENT THE COURT CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS : ARTICLES 3 ( F ), 5 , 85 AND 86 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 , VERSAILLES , 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 . COSTS