Report for the Hearing delivered in Case 204/87

I — Facts and written procedure

Guy Bekaert, a company director of Saint-Lo, was fined FF 50000 on 22 January 1987 by the tribunal correctionnel (Criminal Court), Rennes, for obtaining from the Commission départementale d'urbanisme (Town Planning Authority) of La Manche a permit to extend his commercial premises by making false statements and providing incorrect information. By virtue of the Law of 27 December 1973, better known as the Loi P.oyer, traders wishing to enlarge their sales premises to an area greater than 1000 m2 in municipalities of less than 40000 inhabitants and 1500 m2 in municipalities with more than 40000 inhabitants may do so only after obtaining a permit from the Commission départementale d'urbanisme commercial.

Mr Bekaert appealed against that judgment to the cour d'appel (Court of Appeal), Rennes, on the ground that the abovementioned legislation was contrary to the Community provisions laying down the principles of freedom of trade and of competition and, therefore, freedom of establishment.

The cour d'appel, Rennes, considering that the requirement of a prior permit on the terms laid down by the Loi Royer constituted a restriction on the freedom of establishment, even though prompted by the wish to protect a class of traders that was threatened with extinction, and considering that, as far as it was aware, the Court of Justice of the European Communities had not yet considered that problem, decided on 22 June 1987 to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

The order containing that question was received at the Court Registry on 6 July 1987.

Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, written observations were submitted by the Government of the French Republic, represented by Gilbert Guillaume, acting as Agent, and by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser Étienne Lasnet, acting as Agent.

Upon hearing the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry. By decision of 26 November 1986, it assigned the case to the First Chamber.

II — Written observations submitted to the Court

The French Government, after noting that the question submitted calls for the same observations on the substance of the case as those which it submitted in Case 20/87 (Ministère public v Gauchard [1987] ECR 4879) of which it attaches a copy, proposes that the question should be recast as follows :

May the Community rules on freedom of establishment be relied upon by a national as regards the legislation of his own State?

Must the Community rules on intra-Community trade and the Community competition rules applicable to undertakings be interpreted as prohibiting legislation of the kind represented by the French Law of 27 December 1973, and more particularly Chapter I thereof?

It suggests that both limbs of that question, as reworded, should be answered in the negative.

The Commission also notes that the question is identical to that submitted by the tribunal de police, Falaise, in Case 20/87 Gauchard (cited above). Accordingly, it considers that the question should be answered as follows:

III — Observations made at the hearing

The Spanish Government emphasized that it shares the views of the Commission and the French Government that the national rules in question do not appear to be contrary to the principles of Community law, in particular the principle of freedom of establishment.

1 Language of the Case: French.