L 106/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 23.4.1999 (Acts whose publication is not obligatory) COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 7 April 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/36.147 EPI code of conduct) (notified under document number C(1999) 494) (Only the French text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (1999/267/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 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 Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Articles 2 and 6 thereof, Having regard to the application for negative clearance and the notification with a view to an exemption presented on 17 July 1996 pursuant to Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 17, Having regard to the Commission Decision of 7 May 1998 to initiate proceedings in this case, Having regard to the summary of the application and notification, published (%) in accordance with Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17 and Article 3 of Protocol 21 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), Having consulted the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, () OJ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62. () OJ C 155, 20.5.1998, p. 3. Whereas: ) ) I. THE FACTS A. The notification On 17 July 1996 the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (hereinafter referred to as ‘the EPT’) notified its code of conduct, as last amended by its Council on 7 May 1996, to the Commission with a view to obtaining negative clearance or, failing that, an exemption from the prohibition of restrictive prac- tices. This notification was in reply to a statement of objections sent to the EPI on 18 November 1995 following a complaint lodged on 8 June 1992 by Michael Harrison, European Patent Agent for the firm of solicitors styled Dibb Lupton Broomhead (now Dibb Lupton Alsop) of the United Kingdom (Case 1V/34.775). On 18 December 1996 the Commission sent a letter of warning to the EPI stating inter alia that an exemption could not be granted either in respect of the provisions of the code of conduct prohibiting advertising, based as they were on vague and imprecise notions, or with regard to the requirement that members charge reasonable fees.