Article 4
This Decision is addressed to: - P& O European Ferries Channel House Channel View Road Dover GB-Kent CT17 9TJ; - Stena Line UK Charter House Park St. Ashford GB-Kent TN24 8EX; - Sea France 3, rue Ambroise Paré F-75475 Paris Cedex 10; - Brittany Ferries S.A. Port de Bloscon F-29680 Roscoff; - North Sea Ferries Postbus 1123 NL-3180 AC Rozenburg ZH. This Decision is enforceable pursuant to Article 192 of the EC Treaty. Done at Brussels, 30 October 1996. For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission (1) OJ No L 378, 31. 12. 1986, p. 4. (2) OJ No L 376, 31. 12. 1988, p. 1. (3*) In the published version of the Decision, some information has hereinafter been omitted, pursuant to the provisions of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 concerning professional secrecy. (4) OJ No C 82, 19. 3. 1994, p. 7. This agreement is now discontinued. (5) Stena Sealink reply to Article 16 request. (6) P& OEF reply to Article 16 request (7) Document found at the premises of P& OEF. (8) Document found at Sally Line during the Commission investigation. (9) P& OEF reply to Article 16 request. (10) Document found at the premises of Brittany Ferries. (11) Document found at the premises of P& OEF. (12) Document found at the premises of Truckline Ferries. (13) North Sea Ferries reply to Article 16 request. (14) Document found at the premises of P& OEF. (15) Stena Line BV reply to Article 16 request. (16) Document found at the premises of Truckline Ferries. (17) NSF reply to Statement of Objections, point 3.9; P& O reply to Statement of Objections, point 3.10. (18) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 July 1972 in Case 48/69, ICI v. Commission, [1972] ECR 619, paragraph 64. (19) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 December 1975 in Joined Cases 40-48, 50, 54-56, 111, 113 & 114/73, Suiker Unie et al v. Commission, [1975] ECR 1663, paragraph 174. (20) Commission Decision 86/398/EEC ('Polypropylene`) (OJ No L 230, 18. 8. 1986, p. 1), where activities were found to infringe Article 85, notwithstanding that the target prices agreed between the parties to the infringement were never in fact achieved. (21) OJ No C 207, 18. 7. 1996, p. 4.