31.12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 376/7 COMMISSION DECISION of 5 December 1983 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/30.671 — IPTC Belgium) (Only the French text is authentic) (83/667/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 (!), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Greece, and in particular Articles 3 and 15 thereof, Having regard to the Commission Decision of 20 September 1982 to open the proceeding, Having given the undertaking concerned the oppor- tunity to make known its views on the objections raised by the Commission, in accordance with Article 19 (1) of Regulation No 17 and with Com- mission Regulation No 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19 (1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17 (), After consultation with the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, Whereas: [. THE FACTS (1) On 17 December 1981 the Commission adopted Decision 82/371/EEC (3), finding that certain provisions of the Agreement con- cerning the use of the NAVEWA-ANSEAU conformity label for washing machines and dishwashers (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’), signed on 13 December 1978, constituted infringements of Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty, inasmuch as they prevented (') OJ No 13,21.2. 1962, p. 204/62. () OJ No 127, 20. 8. 1963, p. 2268/63. () OJ No L 167, 15. 6. 1982, p. 39. (2) 3) importers of washing machines and dishwash- ers into Belgium who were not the official ‘sole’ importers of the brand of washing machines or dishwashers in question from obtaining certificates of conformity for the machines imported by them on the same terms as manufacturers and sole importers. That Decision was addressed to the Associa- tion  nationale des  services d’eau (ANSEAU-NAVEWA), the Union des four- nisseurs des artisans de [I’alimentation (UFARAL-ULEVO) and the undertakings listed in Annexes I and II to the Decision which were parties to the Agreement. The two lists, which were compiled from information supplied to the Commission by the Commu- nauté de I'Electricit¢é (CEG), distinguished between firms that were associated in the drawing up of the Agreement (Annex I) and those which became parties to the Agreement after its signature (Annex II). Only the firms in the first category were fined. The documentary evidence on the meetings that were held to prepare the Agreement shows that a firm called Allumalux was repre- sented at the following two meetings of the CEG’s ‘Laundry Care’ and ‘Dishwashers’ groups: — the meeting held on 23 October 1978, where it was represented by a Mr Demeestere, and — the meeting on 13 December 1978, where it was represented by a Mr Donnay. On 19 September 1978 the members of the Laundry Care and Dishwashers groups had been told that one of the aims of the CEG was to obtain for its members preferential treatment over non-members, who would