Report for the Hearing in Case C-312/89

I — Facts and procedure

1. Under Articles L.221-2, L.221-4 and L.221-5 of the Code du Travail (Labour Code) in force in the territory of the French Republic, the weekly rest period to be granted to employees, a minimum of 24 consecutive hours, must be allowed on Sunday.

2. That rule is subject to many exceptions, which are laid down by Article L.221-5-1 et seq. of the Code and may be divided into three broad categories:

3. On the ground that SIDEF Conforama, Arts et Meubles and Jima were opening their shops on Sundays and employing their staff on those days, the Union Départementale des Syndicats CGT de l'Aisne (Federation of CGT Trade Unions in the Department of Aisne) submitted an interlocutory application to the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional Court), Saint-Quentin, for an injunction to restrain the respondent companies from opening their shops on Sundays, subject to a fine for contravention.

4. The President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Saint-Quentin, made an order on 5 October 1989 referring to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions worded as follows :

5. The order for reference was lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 11 October 1989.

6. In accordance with Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice, written observations were submitted by the plaintiff in the main proceedings, represented by Maître Khelfat, of the Saint-Quentin Bar, and by A. Lyon-Caen, F. Fabiani and L. Liard, Avocats appearing before the Conseil d'État and the Cour de Cassation, by the defendant, Sidef Conforama represented by M. Distel, of the Parts Bar, by the Government of the French Republic, represented by E. Belliard and G. de Bergues, acting as Agents, and by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser R. Wainwright and by H. Lehman, acting as Agents.

7. Upon hearing the repon of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Coun decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.

II — Written observations submitted to the Court

1. The plaintiff claims that there is a strong similarity between the present case and Case C-145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B & Q. It points out that in its judgment in that case ([1989] ECR 3851) the Coun held that national rules governing the opening hours of retail premises seek to ensure that working and non-working hours are so arranged as to accord with national or regional socio-cultural characteristics, and that that, in the present state of Community law, is a matter for the Member States. The plaintiff maintains that, in that ruling, the Court affirms that the pattern of trade between Member States is not affected by such rules and that it is for the national courts to determine whether their effects on the free movement of goods go beyond the effects which are intrinsic to trade rules.

2. The defendant contends that, in the order for reference, the Tribunal de Grande Instance found that the business sector to which it belongs markets products from within the Community, that a major share of turnover is realized on Sundays, and that Sunday closing pursuant to Article L.221-5 of the Code du Travail would entail a decrease in turnover and hence a decline in the volume of imports from within the Community.

3. The French Government takes the view that its legislation on the weekly Sunday rest period does not fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. In the first place, it observes that the legislation applies to imported and domestic products without distinction. In its view, neither its purpose nor its effect can be to render the marketing of imported products more difficult or expensive than that of domestic products (see judgment in Case 132/80 United Foods and Van den Abeele v Belgium [1981] ECR 995).

1 Language of the case: French.