88/587/EEC: Commission Decision of 28 October 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/B-2/31.424, Hudson's Bay-Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening) (Only the Danish text is authentic)

• Articles: 4

Article 1

1. The following agreements and decisions by associations of undertakings of the Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening (the Danish Fur Breeders Association) and concerted practices constitute infringements of Article 85 (1):

(a) section 4, part 1 (f) of the Regulations of the DPF which provides that active members are, inter alia, those 'who undertake not to organize a sale or in any other way support the sale of skins in competition with the sales activity of the Danish Fur Breeders Associations' and the application of this provision;

(b) section 5 of the Regulations regarding the Emergency Assistance Scheme which refuses emergency assistance when the insured has suppliled furs for sale through sales outlets other than the DPA in the year of damage or the previous financial year;

(c) the obligations on a member to supply his/her entire production for sale by the DPA:

- in the event of the member being granted a kit advance

- in the event of the member wishing to enter the 'hit list' competition;

(d) section 5 of the Standarde Pelting Control Agreement which prohibits the Pelting Centre from showing or arranging the sale for dipatch of skins to anybody other than the DPA.

2. The DPF shall, to the extent that it has not already done so, terminate the infringements found in paragraph 1 and shall in future refrain from taking any measure ahving the same object or effect as the above restrictions.

3. An exemption under Article 85 (3) for the Regulations notified to the Commission and which are referred to at paragraph 1 (a) and (b) is hereby refused. 4. The DPF shall inform the two members expelled from the Association because they acted as agents for HBA that the obligation which led to their explusion was found to have infringed Article 85 (1). The DPF shall forward to the Commission a copy of this communication and any replies thereto.

Article 2

1. For committing the infringements referred to in Article 1, a fine of ECU 500 000 (five hundred thousand) is hereby imposed on the Danish Fur Breeders Association.

2. The fine shall be paid by the Danish Fur Breeders Association into

(a) account No 1013823 of the Commission of the European Communities, Brussels (for payment in ECU) at Kjoebenhavns Handelsbank, 2 Holmen's Kanal, KD-1091 Copenhagen K;

(b) account No 7351-6 operational account of the Commission of the European Communities, Brussels (for payment in Danish kroner) at Denmarks Nationalbank, Havnegade 5, DK-1093 Copenhagen K, within three months from the date of notification of this Decision.

After three months, interest shall automatically be payable at the rate charged by the European Monetary Cooperation Fund on its ecus operations on the first working day of the month in which this Decision was adopted, plus 3,5 percentage points, i.e. 10,75 %.

Should payment be made in Danish kroner the exchange rate applicable shall be that prevailing on the day preceding payment.

Article 3

The Danish Fur Breeders Association shall inform its members of this Decision by 31 January 1989 and shall inform the Commission of the manner in which this has been done.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to:

Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening,

(The Danish Fur Breeders Association),

Langagervej 60,

DK-2600 Glostrup.

This Decision is enforceable pursuant to Article 192 of the EEC Treaty.

Done at Brussels, 28 October 1988.

For the Commission

Peter SUTHERLAND

Member of the Commission

(1) In some respects the DPF is also an association of the local and provincial associations but this is not relevant for this case.

(2) OJ No 30, 20. 4. 1962, p. 993/62.

(1) In regard to an import restriction the Court has stated: 'because it restricts the freedom of members to import direct into the Netherlands, this clause is liable to interfere with the natural movement of trade and thus to affect trade between member countries' (Frubo v. Commission /1975/ ECR 584.)

(2) In IAZ, Joined Cases 96-102/82, 104/82, 105/82, 108/82 and 110/82 (Report of Cases before the Court, 1983, page 3369) the Court held at point 35 of its Judgment that 'the purpose of the agreement was appreciably to restrict parallel imports . . . and it thus tends to isolate the Belgium market in a manner incompatible with the fundamental principles of the common market'.