OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

   SIR GORDON SLYNN

   delivered on 14 May 1985

   My Lords,

   This case comes to the Court by way of reference for a preliminary
   ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, dated 27 June 1984, by the
   Tribunal de grande instance, Orléans, in criminal proceedings pending
   before the Tribunal.

   In those proceedings Jean-Pierre Gontier, as the person in charge of a
   `Leclerc' supermarket, is charged with infringing the French
   Ministerial Decree No 8 3-5 8 /A of 9 November 1983 laying down minimum
   prices for the retail sale of petrol. Mr Gontier pleaded by way of
   defence that that Decree was incompatible with Community law, and in
   order to resolve that issue the Tribunal referred the following
   questions to the Court 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
   introduction in a Member State, by the adoption of laws or regulations,
   of minimum sale prices for regulargrade and super-grade petrol?

   Can 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 and may it be regarded as justified
   on grounds of public policy within the meaning of Article 36 of the
   Treaty?'

   The events which gave rise to the present case are similar to those
   which gave rise to Case 231/83 Cullet v Centre Leclerc, in which the
   Court gave judgment on 29 January 1985. However, the events in the
   present case took place in May 1984 and hence fell under Ministerial
   Decree No 83-58/A of 9 November 1983 and not under Ministerial Decree
   No 82-13/A, which it repealed and replaced with effect from 15 November
   1983. It must therefore be considered to what extent, if any, this
   changes the issues of Community law involved.

   Under the French legislation in force both at the time of the events in
   Cullet and at the time of the events in the present case, the minimum
   retail selling price was fixed simply by subtracting a certain number
   of francs per litre from the maximum selling price per litre, which was
   fixed by means of a complicated series of calculations described in the
   Opinion and judgment in Cullet. Under Decree No 82-13/A, at issue in
   Cullet, the amount to be subtracted was 9 centimes per litre for normal
   grade petrol and 10 centimes per litre for super-grade petrol. As from
   15 November 1983 the reductions were changed to 16 centimes and 17
   centimes respectively by Ministerial Decree No 83-58/A, at issue in the
   present case. Apart from this change, the system for fixing the minimum
   retail price of petrol in France remained in all material respects
   unchanged. It follows that this case involves essentially the same
   issues of Community law as the Cullet case.

   Those issues are accurately identified in the questions referred by the
   national court. Although those questions do not cite Articles 85 and 86
   of the EEC Treaty, paragraphs 15 to 18 of the Court's judgment in
   Cullet have already established that those articles do not apply as
   such to a case like this.

   The observations submitted by the defendant, the French Government and
   the Commission add nothing of substance to the arguments put to the
   Court in the Cullet case. The Court's judgment in that case covered all
   the issues involved which concern Articles 3, 5 and 30. It has not been
   shown in this case, any more than it was shown in the Cullet case
   (paragraphs 32 and 33) that any of the provisions of Article 36 apply
   so as to justify the restrictions on imports and thereby exclude the
   prohibition on measures of equivalent effect contained in Article 30.

   In my view, for the reasons given in the judgment of 29 January 1985 in
   Cullet, the answers to the questions referred by the Tribunal should be
   as follows:

   `(1)

   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.

   (2)

   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.

   (3)

   None of the provisions of Article 36 of the EEC Treaty has been shown
   to apply so as to relieve such rules from the prohibition contained in
   Article 30 thereof.'

   The costs of the parties to the main proceedings fall to be dealt with
   by the national court. No order should be made as to the costs of the
   French Republic and the Commission.