1 BY JUDGMENT OF 14 DECEMBER 1983 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 9 JANUARY 1984 , THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE ( REGIONAL COURT ), BRIEY , REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY TWO 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 CHRISTIAN GRATIOT IN HIS CAPACITY AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF CONFLANS-DISTRIBUTION SA WHICH OPERATES SUPERMARKETS IN CONJUNCTION WITH PETROL STATIONS . MR GRATIOT IS CHARGED , INTER ALIA , WITH HAVING , IN JANUARY AND JULY 1983 , OFFERED FUEL FOR SALE AT PRICES BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICES FIXED BY THE RELEVANT RULES .
3 THE ACCUSED DID NOT DISPUTE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FACTS ALLEGED AGAINST HIM BUT ASKED TO BE ACQUITTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE MINIMUM PRICES WHICH HE HAD FAILED TO APPLY WERE BASED ON MINISTERIAL DECREE NO 82-13/A OF 29 APRIL 1982 CONCERNING MINIMUM RETAIL SELLING PRICES FOR FUEL , THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH HE MAINTAINED WERE ILLEGAL SINCE THEY WERE IN CONFLICT WITH COMMUNITY LAW .
4 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , BRIEY , CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING : ' ( 1 ) ARE ARTICLES 3 ( F ) AND 5 OF THE TREATY OF 25 MARCH 1957 ESTABLISHING THE EEC TO BE INTERPRETED AS PROHIBITING THE LAYING DOWN IN A MEMBER STATE BY LAW OR REGULATION OF BINDING MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE SALE OF ' ' SUPER ' ' AND ' ' REGULAR ' ' PETROL? ( 2)MAY THE FIXING OF SUCH MINIMUM PRICES CONSTITUTE A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION ON IMPORTS OR A MEASURE HAVING 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 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 , BRIEY , 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 .