31.12.85 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 374/1 (Acts whose publication is not obligatory ) COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 14 December 1985 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/30.698 - ECS/AKZO) (Only the Dutch text is authentic) (85/609/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Greece, and in particular Articles 3 and 15 thereof, Having regard to the complaint dated 15 June 1982 made to the Commission pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation 17 by Engineering and Chemical Supplies (Epsom and Gloucester) Ltd of Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom that AKZO Chemie BV of Amersfoort, Netherlands had infringed Article 86, Having regard to the Commission Decision of 8§ June 1983 to initiate proceedings in this case, Having regard to Commission Decision 83/462/EEC of 29 July 1983 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (2) ordering interim measures, Having given the undertaking concerned the opportunity to make known its views on the objections raised by the Commission, in accordance with Article 19 (1) of Regulation No 17 and with Commission Regulation No (1) OJ No 13, 21. 2. 1962, p. 204/62. (2) OJ No 252,13.9. 1983, p. 13. - 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19 (1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17 (3), After consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, Whereas: I. THE FACTS Introduction 1. This Decision arises from an application pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 17 by Engineering and Chemical Supplies (Epsom and Gloucester) Ltd (ECS) a small producer of the organic per- oxide benzoyl peroxide in the United Kingdom. ECS alleged that AKZO Chemie BV, part of the large multinational group AKZO had, contrary to Article 86 of the EEC Treaty, abused the domin- ant position which it holds in the EEC organic peroxides market. The alleged abusive conduct involved the implementation of a policy of selective and below-cost price-cutting designed to damage the business of ECS and exclude it as a competitor. It was claimed by ECS that these exclusionary pricing tactics had been concentrated in a relatively specialized sub-market (the flour additives sector) in the United Kingdom and Ireland which then accounted for the majority of ECS’s turnover so that it would not be able to finance its planned expansion to the much broader EEC market for organic peroxides for the plastics industry. (3) OJ No 127, 20. 8. 1963, p. 2268/63.