Case C-805/26, Rossmann Magyarország – a margin cap for the big retailers
Price controls are usually tested against the rules on goods. This one reaches the Court of Justice through the Services Directive, because retail is a service.
Facts
Rossmann Magyarország Kft. is in proceedings before the Kúria against the Fejér County Government Office, which fined it under Hungarian rules adopted, according to the question, by invoking an emergency situation. Those rules require retailers of household goods with a net annual turnover of more than HUF 1 billion to ensure that the margin they apply to certain categories of products does not exceed the average margin they applied to those products in an earlier period, and in any event 15%, and to keep those products in stock, on pain of a fine. The Kúria asks whether Article 49 TFEU and Articles 14(1) and 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC allow such rules. It also asks whether a court that orders the refund of a fine imposed under a provision contrary to EU law must award default interest, even where the sector-specific legislation says nothing about it.
Questions Referred
1. Can Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Articles 14(1) and 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, invoking an emergency situation, obliges retailers of household goods with a net annual turnover of more than 1 billion forints (HUF), subject to the payment of a fine, to ensure that the profit margin applied to certain categories of products does not exceed the average profit margin applied to those products in a previous period, up to a maximum of 15 %, and which imposes on them an obligation to keep those products in stock?
2. Does it follow from the principles of EU law that a court reviewing the legality of an administrative decision must impose the obligation to pay default interest after ordering the refund of a fine imposed by an administrative decision based on a provision that is contrary to EU law, even in cases where the sector-specific administrative legislation applicable to that particular case makes no provision with regard to the legal basis for, and the rate of, default interest, provided that claiming such interest in separate proceedings does not exceptionally impede the exercise of the applicant’s rights under EU law?
Sources
OJ notice C/2026/5480 (EUR‑Lex) · Case file on CURIA · Directive 2006/123/EC · Visser, C‑360/15 and C‑31/16 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:44) · Tesco-Global Áruházak, C‑323/18 (ECLI:EU:C:2020:140) · Littlewoods Retail, C‑591/10 (ECLI:EU:C:2012:478)
Comment
The route through the Services Directive was opened by Visser (C‑31/16), where the Court held that “the activity of retail trade in goods constitutes a ‘service’” for the purposes of the Directive and that its chapter on establishment applies “to a situation where all the relevant elements are confined to a single Member State”. A Hungarian rule addressed to shops in Hungary therefore has to be tested against Article 15. Among the requirements that Article 15(2) lists for evaluation are “fixed minimum and/or maximum tariffs with which the provider must comply”. A cap on margins is a cap on prices. Under Article 15(3), such a requirement must be non-discriminatory, justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest, and proportionate, and it must not be possible to replace it by a less restrictive measure. The duty to keep the products in stock is a further obligation on how the shop is run.
The question also cites Article 14(1), which prohibits outright requirements that discriminate directly or indirectly by nationality or registered office. The scheme applies only above a turnover threshold, which in practice catches the large chains. If the argument is that their burden falls mainly on retailers controlled from other Member States, it has failed before against Hungary: in Tesco-Global Áruházak (C‑323/18) the Court held that a steeply progressive turnover tax was not contrary to Articles 49 and 54 TFEU merely because its burden fell mainly on undertakings controlled from other Member States. A margin cap is not a tax, but the threshold logic is the same, and the stronger ground for Rossmann is likely to be proportionality, particularly given that the measure was justified by an emergency.
The second question is the more settled. In Littlewoods Retail (C‑591/10) the Court held that a taxpayer who paid tax collected in breach of EU law has a right to repayment “and to the payment of interest”, the type of interest being for national law within the limits of effectiveness and equivalence. The Kúria asks whether the same applies to a fine, and whether a court must award interest of its own motion when the legislation that governs the case is silent.