## Facts

- Ireland maintained a State-owned oil refinery and adopted measures requiring private oil importers to purchase a fixed minimum proportion of their petroleum products from that refinery.
- The compulsory purchases were made at prices based on the refinery’s costs and fixed by public authorities.
- Importers challenged the scheme, arguing it limited their ability to import petroleum products from other Member States on competitive terms.
- Ireland defended the scheme as necessary to keep the refinery operating to secure continuity of national petroleum supplies, especially during crises.
- The Irish High Court referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on compatibility with EEC Treaty rules on free movement of goods and related provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether a national rule requiring importers to buy a minimum share of petroleum products from a State-owned refinery at State-fixed prices is a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports (Article 30 EEC).
2. If so, whether the scheme can be justified under rules governing undertakings entrusted with services of general economic interest (Article 90(2) EEC).
3. Alternatively, whether the scheme can be justified on grounds of public security (Article 36 EEC), and what necessity and proportionality limits apply.

## Decision

- The Court held the compulsory purchase obligation was a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction under Article 30 because it was liable to hinder imports by limiting importers’ freedom to source supply from other Member States.
- The Court rejected Article 90(2) as an independent justification for import-restrictive protection of the refinery.
- The Court held the scheme could, in principle, be justified under Article 36 on public security grounds related to security of petroleum supply, but only if the national court found it strictly necessary and proportionate.
- The Court provided interpretive criteria for the national court to apply to the specific operation of the Irish measures.

## Legal Principles

- Measures capable of hindering intra-Community trade, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, fall within the prohibition on measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions (Article 30 EEC).
- An obligation on importers to purchase a minimum proportion of requirements from a domestic undertaking at State-fixed prices is liable to hinder imports and therefore violates Article 30 absent justification.
- Article 90(2) does not permit a Member State to protect an undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest by imposing barriers that restrict imports from other Member States.
- Petroleum supply can fall within “public security” under Article 36 because essential public services and basic societal functions depend on uninterrupted access to petroleum products.
- Article 36 derogations are construed strictly and may not operate as arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade.
- Any Article 36 measure must be confined to what is necessary; compulsory purchasing may be permissible only to the extent required to maintain the refinery at an operational level needed for supply security, without conferring broader economic protection.

## Conclusion

The Court treated Ireland’s compulsory oil-purchase scheme as an import-restrictive measure barred by Article 30, unavailable for justification under Article 90(2), but potentially defensible under Article 36 if the national court verified that the scheme’s scope, pricing, and purchase proportions were strictly necessary and proportionate to a genuine public-security objective of safeguarding petroleum supplies.


Campus Oil Ltd. v. Minister for Indus. & Energy, Case 72/83, 1984 E.C.R. 2727 (Ct. J. 1984)