1 BY JUDGMENTS OF 8 OCTOBER 1984 AND 19 NOVEMBER 1984 , WHICH WERE RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 20 NOVEMBER 1984 AND 14 JANUARY 1985 RESPECTIVELY , THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , ROCHE-SUR-YON , REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IDENTICAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 3 ( F ), 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 QUESTIONS WERE RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT AGAINST MR CHIRON , MANAGING DIRECTOR OF CENTRE LECLERC , MONTAIGU ( CASE 271/84 ), MR PEROUSE , MANAGING DIRECTOR OF CENTRE LECLERC , FONTENAY-LE-COMTE ( CASE 272/84 ), MR JAUD , MANAGING DIRECTOR , AND MR PROUTEAU , ACCOUNTANT , OF SODIROCHE SA , ROCHE-SUR-YON ( JOINED CASES 273 AND 274/84 ), MR BYROTHEAU , MANAGING DIRECTOR OF INTERMARCHE SA , FONTENAY-LE-COMTE ( CASE 6/85 ) AND MR VINCENDEAU , MANAGING DIRECTOR OF SHEDIS AVENUE SA , LES HERBIERS ( CASE 7/85 ). THE AFOREMENTIONED PERSONS ARE ACCUSED , IN THEIR STATED CAPACITIES , INTER ALIA , OF HAVING CHARGED UNLAWFUL PRICES BY SELLING OR OFFERING FOR SALE FUEL AT PRICES BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICE FIXED BY THE RULES CONCERNING FUEL PRICES .
3 THE ACCUSED DID NOT DISPUTE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FACTS ALLEGED AGAINST THEM BUT ASKED TO BE ACQUITTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE FRENCH RULES CONCERNING FUEL PRICES , IN PARTICULAR MINISTERIAL DECREES NOS 82-12 AND 82-13/A OF 29 APRIL 1982 , WERE IN CONFLICT WITH COMMUNITY LAW AND THEREFORE INAPPLICABLE .
4 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , ROCHE-SUR-YON , CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING : ' MUST ARTICLES 3 ( F ) AND 5 OF THE TREATY OF 25 MARCH 1957 ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY BE INTERPRETED AS PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT IN A MEMBER STATE , BY MEANS OF LAWS OR REGULATIONS , OF MINIMUM SELLING PRICES FOR ' ' REGULAR ' ' AND ' ' SUPER ' ' PETROL? CAN THE FIXING OF SUCH MINIMUM PRICES CONSTITUTE A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION ON IMPORTS OR A MEASURE HAVING THE EQUIVALENT EFFECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY? '
5 IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 29 JANUARY 1985 IN CASE 231/83 ( CULLET V CENTRE LECLERC TOULOUSE , ( 1985 ) ECR 305 ) 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 TEATY 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 THE PRESENT CASE REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE , WITH REGARD TO THE REPLIES TO BE GIVEN TO THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , ROCHE-SUR-YON , 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 .