Irish Competition Authority Decisions

1. Notification was made by Blugas Limited on 30 September 1992 with a request for a certificate under Section 4(4) of the Competition Act, 1991 or, in the event of a refusal by the Competition Authority to grant a certificate, a licence under Section 4(2) in respect of the standard agreements Blugas has with bulk customers.

2. The notification concerns a standard agreement by Blugas with its bulk LPG customers, which provides for exclusive purchase by the customers of all of their LPG requirements from Blugas for a period of five years.

3. Blugas Limited is a recent entrant as a supplier of LPG in the State. It was incorporated in 1987, and commenced trading two years later. The founders were Jones Oil Ltd, Suttons Oil Ltd. (now part of the IAWS group), and Three Rivers Oil Ltd. The founders were all involved in the oil distribution business, as distributors of Esso products in different parts of the State.

4. The principal activity of Blugas is the supply and distribution of LPG under the Blugas tradename. LPG is supplied to Blugas primarily by Esso, and is imported into Dublin and stored at the Blugas terminal in Dublin. Bulk LPG customers include those involved in industrial processing and heating, commercial heating, water heating and catering, agricultural/horticultural heating, fish farming and road marking, and private households. These customers purchase LPG for their own use. In addition, bulk LPG is supplied to retail petrol stations who in turn supply the motorist. The distribution was done by the three founder members, but Blugas has recently taken over the distribution function formerly undertaken by Jones Oil. Blugas also supplies bottled LPG through distributors to retailers who resell it to domestic consumers and to the industrial market. The relevant agreements for LPG dealers have been covered by the category licence (1) and those for distributors are the subject of a separate notification.

5. The characteristics of the product and the market were described at length in the Authority's category licence for agreements with cylinder LPG dealers. Since LPG is distributed throughout the State, the appropriate geographic market is the State.

6. Under the notified Blugas bulk LPG supply agreement, Blugas agrees to supply, and the buyer agrees to purchase from Blugas for consumption at the buyer's premises, the buyer's total requirement of LPG for a period of five years. Blugas provides equipment for the use and storage of LPG, for which the buyer pays an annual rental. The agreement contains provisions relating to delivery, price, termination, indemnity, insurance and force majeure, among others.

7. The main provisions of the agreement are as follows:

A. The Customer hereby grants to Blugas the exclusive right to supply Liquified Petroleum Gas (the "Product") to the Customer .....

1. Subject to the provisions for earlier termination hereinafter set out, this Agreement shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of its execution.

2. The Customer shall take delivery of the Product or procure delivery to be taken of the Product on such days, between such hours and in loads of minimum or maximum quantity as may from time to time be reasonably prescribed by Blugas (which expression for the purpose of this paragraph shall be deemed to include Blugas' agents and authorised distributors) .......... Such delivery shall be in bulk or by cylinders, at Blugas' option, to the Premises.

3(a) Blugas will furnish and install at the premises the equipment set out in Special Condition 2 (the "Equipment") for the use and storage of the Product ........ The Equipment shall at all times remain the property of Blugas and the Customer hereby consents to the maintenance of the Equipment by Blugas at the Premises and shall allow Blugas such access as shall be reasonably required for the purpose of such maintenance.

3(c)(i) Subject to Clause 11(b) [interruption of supply], the Customer shall use the Equipment at all times exclusively for the storage of Product supplied by Blugas.

10. The Product and the Equipment supplied under this Agreement shall be for the Customer's own use and shall not be resold. The Customer further undertakes that the Product and the Equipment supplied under the Agreement shall not be exchanged, adulterated, decanted, or otherwise dealt with in any way, or used in connection with or as fuel for mechanically propelled vehicles.

The special conditions include the place of delivery of the product, equipment owned and installed by Blugas, price of the product, fixed annual rental for loan and maintenance of the equipment and the fee in connection with the commissioning and installation of the equipment.

8. Blugas claimed that the bulk supply agreement did not offend against Section 4(1) of the Act. The overall effect of the agreement was to encourage and promote competition by ensuring the efficient distribution of Blugas' products. Certain provisions were necessary to ensure this ultimate objective and were reasonable in their terms. Blugas believed that the said provisions did not infringe Section 4(1) of the Competition Act. The agreement was also pro-competitive as it involved a new entrant to a market dominated by a small number of large companies. Blugas further submitted that the Competition Authority adopt what has been termed under, in particular, United States, and European Community, competition law, a "rule of reason" approach and consider the agreement and the provisions noted to be reasonable in the context of Section 4(1) and therefore outside the application of that provision. Blugas referred to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Stergios Delimitis v. Henninger Brau, Case 234/89, 28th February, 1991, and the judgment of Mr Justice Keane in Masterfoods Limited Trading as Mars Ireland v. HB Ice Cream Limited, 28th May, 1992.

9. In relation to Section 4(2) of the Act, Blugas claimed that:

(a) The Agreement involved an exclusive purchasing obligation. Such agreements led in general to an improvement in distribution. They enabled the supplier to plan the sales of his goods with greater precision and for a longer period and ensured that the customer's requirements would be met on a regular basis for the duration of the agreement. This allowed the parties to limit the risk to them of variations in market conditions and to lower costs. These general considerations were particularly relevant in the context of the Blugas market. Blugas was a relatively new entrant to the LPG market. As such, Blugas needed its standard customer network in order to enable it to compete in a market traditionally dominated by a small number of companies with large market shares. Further, Blugas' entry to the market had increased competition.

(b) Exclusive purchasing agreements between suppliers and customers also allowed consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit as they gained the advantages of regular supply and were able to obtain the contract goods more quickly and more easily;

(c) In general, the agreement only contained provisions which were reasonable and necessary in order to obtain the above objectives. Blugas made the following individual comments:-

Recital A this provision was reasonable and necessary in order to guarantee the effective sale

of Blugas' products. In addition, the customer benefited as it was guaranteed a regular supply of LPG;

Clause 3(c)(i) this provision was a corollary of Recital A and was therefore reasonable for the reasons noted above.

Clause 10 the products were not sold for resale, the customer was not a reseller. Separate agreements applied in relation to resale. This provision was therefore reasonable.

(d) The agreement would not result in a serious restriction of competition. On the contrary, the Blugas network stimulated competition as Blugas was a relatively new entrant in a market dominated by a small number of companies with large market shares. In contrast Blugas' market share at 31st December 1991 was around 4%.

10. In response to enquiries made by the Authority, Blugas stated that the supply of bulk LPG involved significant sunk costs on their part, for example, the cost of transporting and installing the bulk tanks. In the case of a new customer, this might include installing expensive pipeworking. These costs meant that Blugas were unlikely to make any profit from a bulk agreement for the first 1.5 to 2 years (sometimes longer). They considered it reasonable that their customers should undertake to purchase exclusively from Blugas for a certain period of time in order that Blugas might recoup its investment and generate a return. If a customer met the sunk costs itself, Blugas would not ask the customer to purchase bulk LPG exclusively from Blugas. They required exclusive use of the equipment for the storage of Blugas as Blugas owned the equipment. They argued that it was reasonable that Blugas should ensure that their own property was only used for certain purposes, bearing in mind the sunk and investment costs involved. They estimated that the cost of the equipment supplied to bulk industrial customers - tanks, installation equipment, piping, etc - varied from £6,000 to £25,000.

11. Following the publication of the Flogas notifications (including CA/16/92E) by the Authority, Blugas transmitted two lengthy submissions to the Authority, at the end of July 1992, prepared by economists and lawyers respectively. These also referred to the Calor bulk LPG agreements, which had not at that time been notified, although they were notified subsequently (CA/154/92E and CA/155/92E). The submissions argued, on a number of grounds, that neither a certificate nor a licence should be granted to the Flogas or Calor dealer agreements. The eventual notification of the Blugas bulk supply agreement showed (see para 7) that this followed industry practice in providing for the exclusive purchase of Blugas by the bulk customer for five years. Blugas stated that, in order to survive, it had to employ agreements which afforded similar protection to that which was enjoyed by its competitors. Their exclusive purchasing obligation was simply a market reaction to the actions of competitors. Just as the Authority has taken into account the submissions by Blugas in assessing the Flogas and Calor bulk supply agreements, insofar as they related to the notified agreements, so it has taken the Blugas submissions into account in considering the bulk supply agreement notified by Blugas itself, insofar as these are relevant.

12. Section 4(1) of the Competition Act, 1991 prohibits and renders void all agreements between undertakings which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in any goods or services in the State or in any part of the State.

13. According to Section 3(1) of the Act, 'undertaking means a person being a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons engaged for gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a service.' Blugas is an incorporated body engaged for gain in the supply and distribution of LPG, both to resellers and to final consumers. Accordingly, Blugas is an undertaking within the meaning of the Act. Bulk customers are not resellers of the product but consume it themselves. A number of the bulk customers are engaged in the production, supply or distribution of other goods, or the provision of services, for gain, being engaged in farming, manufacturing, retail trade, catering, motor service stations, and so on. These customers are also undertakings within the meaning of the Act. A number of bulk customers may not come within the definition of an undertaking and supply agreements with them are not therefore covered by the Act. This decision does not apply to such agreements. With the exception of these agreements, the notified agreements are agreements between undertakings within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Act.

14. The bulk supply agreement provides that the customer shall purchase from Blugas his total requirements of LPG. The agreement has a term of five years, but may be renewed. It also provides that equipment supplied by Blugas shall be used exclusively for the storage of Blugas. The agreements apply to exclusive purchase of LPG in cylinders as well as to bulk supplies of LPG.

15. For the duration of the agreement, the customer can only purchase LPG from Blugas, and from no other supplier, and no other supplier can sell the product to the customer. This limits the commercial freedom of the customer to buy LPG from any source he wishes, and the ability of others to supply him, and denies him supplies unless he accepts the exclusive purchase requirement. While each individual agreement might have relatively little effect upon competition, all the agreements together form a network of restrictive agreements for the distribution of Blugas to bulk customers. This is reinforced since Calor and Flogas also have similar exclusive purchase agreements, thus forming a restrictive system of distribution in the LPG market as a whole. No customer can purchase LPG from anyone other than the exclusive supplier for a relatively long period of time. This tends to introduce a considerable degree of rigidity into the market, and it makes it difficult for a new entrant to enter the market quickly on any significant scale since a large number of potential customers, including many large users, are not available, at least until their exclusive agreements have expired. The Authority considers, therefore, that the standard Blugas bulk supply agreement has the object and the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition in goods in the State, and thus it offends against Section 4(1).

16. Clause 3(c)(i) of the agreement provides that the equipment supplied, which is the property of Blugas, shall be used exclusively for the storage of Blugas. The customer must pay for the installation and maintenance of the storage equipment, usually a pressurised bulk storage tank, but Blugas is entitled to remove it on termination of the agreement. The views of the Authority in respect of exclusive use of equipment requirements which represent exclusive purchasing obligations have been given in its decision on certain Burmah Castrol agreements (2).

17. In the present case, the requirement that the equipment only be used for the storage of Blugas, while it means that it cannot be used for the products of competitors, does not in itself have the object or effect that the customer must purchase LPG exclusively from Blugas. The customer is already subject to an exclusive purchasing provision. Its purpose is to prevent competitors from securing a 'free ride' in the costly equipment which has been supplied by Blugas, thus giving them a competitive advantage. There would usually be space in the customer's premises for the installation of a competitor's storage tank, or, they could purchase cylinder gas from another supplier. While this might be less convenient, it does not, of itself, prevent the customer from buying from suppliers other than Blugas, it does not have the effect of representing an exclusive purchasing agreement, and the requirement does not offend against Section 4(1). In the circumstances, the Authority does not consider it necessary to deal with the Mars v H B judgment (3), which concerns exclusive use of equipment.

18. In arguing for a certificate, Blugas submitted that the Authority should adopt a 'rule of reason' approach and consider the agreements to be reasonable in the context of Section 4(1), and outside the scope of the section. They also referred to the EU judgment in Delimitis v Henniger Brau.

19. The Authority adopts a rule of reason approach to every agreement notified to it. Section 4(1) prohibits anti-competitive agreements generally, and it gives some specific examples of these. The Authority noted in its very first decision, however, that Section 4(1) could not be interpreted literally since it would mean that virtually every form of business agreement could be considered offensive. This does not mean that an anti-competitive agreement could be regarded as inoffensive because the parties consider it to be 'reasonable'. The Authority does not believe that Section 4(1) can be interpreted in that way.

20. Blugas did not make clear the precise aspect of the Delimitis v Henniger Brau judgment (4) which it wished the Authority to consider. That agreement related to exclusive purchase for resale. Nevertheless, the Authority can state that it agrees with the judgment of the EU Court of Justice that an exclusive purchasing agreement must be considered in its economic and legal context, and as part of a network of such agreements by one supplier, and as part of a series of networks of several suppliers, as part of its overall assessment. It notes the view of the Court that access to the market or increasing market share by competitors must be made difficult, because of the cumulative nature of such agreements, and that the agreement in question must make a significant contribution to the sealing-off effect produced by the totality of these agreements, in order for Article 85(1) to be applicable. Following this judgment, the EC Commission modified the notice concerning Regulations 1983/83 and 1984/83 by providing that beer supply agreements would not fall under Article 85(1) if, in particular, the market share of the individual brewer did not exceed more than 1 per cent of the national market for the resale of beer in on-licensed premises (5). The Authority believes that the criteria set out by the Court in Delimitis and the Commission in the notice on beer supply agreements are appropriate for considering whether or not the Blugas agreements should be regarded as offending against Section 4(1). It is clear that the individual Blugas agreement is part of a network of agreements between Blugas and a number of bulk purchasers of LPG. In addition other bulk purchasers of LPG have similar exclusive purchase contracts with other suppliers. The cumulative nature of these agreements makes it difficult for other firms to gain access to the market or to increase their market share, since, at any given time, many potential customers are committed to purchase exclusively from one supplier. It is clear that Blugas has a market share considerably higher than 1%, and that the three main suppliers - Calor, Flogas and Blugas - who operate exclusive purchasing systems, account for around 99% of the market for LPG. It would in any case be invidious and discriminatory for the Authority to treat Blugas, even though it is a relatively new entrant to the market, in a fashion different from the incumbent firms.

21. The Authority considers that the other clauses in the notified agreement do not offend against Section 4(1) of the Act. In particular, clause 10 provides that the product and equipment shall be for the buyer's own use and shall not be resold, exchanged, adulterated, decanted, or otherwise dealt with in any way. Since the agreement is specifically with the final consumer, and for reasons of safety, the Authority does not regard these requirements as offending against Section 4(1). Clause 10 also limits use of the product in motor vehicles. This is essentially for safety reasons, and is not considered to offend against Section 4(1). Clause 2 requires the customer to take delivery at times and in quantities as may be reasonably required by Blugas. These are required to ensure the efficient distribution of the products, and the Authority does not consider that they offend against Section 4(1).

22. Under Section 4(2), the Competition Authority may grant a licence in the case of any agreement or category of agreements which, 'having regard to all relevant market conditions,

contributes to improving the production of goods or provision of services or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit and which does not -

(i) impose on the undertakings concerned terms which are not indispensable to the attainment of those objectives;

(ii) afford undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products or services in question.'

23. In the opinion of the Authority, the bulk LPG supply agreement notified by Blugas fulfils the conditions provided for in Section 4(2).

24. The Authority is aware that LPG is volatile and can be dangerous, and that safety considerations are of great importance, often being laid down by statute. In addition, the supplier provides pressurised equipment, particularly storage tanks, for bulk customers. These features are not sufficient, however, to persuade the Authority that any exceptional treatment can be justified for the supply of bulk LPG to customers.

25. The Blugas bulk supply agreement produces an appreciable improvement in distribution. It enables the supplier, who distributes bulk LPG direct usually to a specialised pressure storage tank on the premises of the customer, to plan the sales of his goods with greater precision and for a longer period, and to justify the investment in costly storage and distribution equipment. It ensures that the customer's requirements will be met on a regular basis for the duration of the agreement. It permits a reduction in distribution costs, compared to a situation where the customer purchased less frequently from two or more suppliers of LPG, for each of which he would need a separate storage tank. These benefits apply to over half of LPG purchased in the State, the remainder being accounted for by retail sales of cylinder LPG. The agreement also contributes to technical progress by virtue of adherence to safety standards and the provision of technical advice.

26. In the Authority's view, the term consumers refers to the users of a product, who, in the present case, are bulk customers. Such customers gain a fair share of the benefits by being assured of regular supplies of LPG. This is especially important to customers who wish to use gas but who are not adjacent to the natural gas grid. Being generally fairly large purchasers, certainly larger than domestic consumers, they are able to use their buying power to secure some of the benefits of reduced distribution costs in their purchase prices for LPG. They also benefit from the fact that they do not need to invest in the essential pressurised storage equipment, which is not needed for other fuels, but they are charged a rental which does not represent the full cost of buying and maintaining the equipment, though this cost is probably recovered over time in the price of the LPG. Customers also benefit from the continuing attention to safety, by way of technical advice and safety support services.

27. There are special circumstances in the supply and distribution of LPG, where expensive storage equipment is required and is supplied by Blugas, and where safety factors are important. Since the Blugas equipment may be restricted to LPG from Blugas only, the benefits of the savings in distribution costs would not be obtained if the exclusive purchasing obligation was not imposed, and if one or more other LPG suppliers could also instal tanks and supply their brand of LPG. The exclusive purchasing obligation, in this situation, is considered to be indispensable in securing the benefits outlined above. (The Authority does not believe that exclusive purchasing obligations generally upon end-users or final customers could be justified except in special circumstances). The maximum five-year period of the agreement is justified by the size of the investment made by Blugas. These customers are generally located away from the national gas grid, and tend to be smaller than the major users of gas, which are located close to the natural gas grid. The Authority, however, would not regard a period for exclusive purchase of longer than five years as indispensable to secure the above benefits.

28. Given the structure of the LPG industry, the Authority considered carefully whether the exclusive purchasing system represented a significant barrier to entry which could result in the foreclosure of new entrants. The long-established firms, Calor and Flogas, have a combined market share of over 90%. Between them, they have exclusive purchase agreements with almost

[ ] bulk customers, excluding domestic consumers. Not surprisingly, these customers include those which regard gas as an essential fuel, but which do not have access to natural gas, though they are few in number. Establishment of a presence in the market as a supplier of LPG is an expensive operation. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the LPG market has been dominated by only one or two firms since its establishment nearly 60 years ago, the Authority considers that the following facts are also relevant:

(a) while several thousand customers in total are bound to purchase exclusively from one supplier for up to five years, there are a large number of other potential customers available to a new entrant for the supply of LPG;

(b) it might be expected that, on average, up to 20% of the tied agreements expire every year, and these customers are free to sign a new agreement with the existing supplier or with another supplier;

(c) the industry has been marked by the occasional successful entry of new suppliers, such as Ergas in 1971, Flogas in 1978, Tervas in 1987 and Blugas itself in 1990. Although Ergas ceased to exist as a supplier independent of Flogas in 1989, Blugas does appear to have built up a network of bulk customers and to have achieved a not insignificant market share in a relatively short period.

The Authority concludes, therefore, that, while the existence of networks of tied customers with exclusive purchasing agreements might make it more difficult to enter the LPG market than in the absence of such arrangements, access to the market is not entirely ruled out, and the exclusive purchasing systems do not operate to foreclose new entry. At the same time, the establishment of a large exclusive customer network by Blugas, in addition to those of Flogas and Calor, would make it more difficult for another supplier to enter the market than it has been for Blugas to enter.

29. As already noted, customers should be powerful enough to ensure that they were not paying excessive prices for Blugas LPG compared to that from a competitor. In addition, it is always possible for customers to use another fuel in alternative equipment with relatively little delay, and to cease purchasing LPG entirely. There is thus no possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question as a result of the notified agreement.

30. While the above consideration of the requirements of Section 4(2) has related primarily to the supply of LPG to bulk storage tanks, the Authority considers that it is equally applicable in the case of supply in cylinder form, even where the cylinders are obtained from distributors or dealers and not directly from Blugas. Furthermore, a customer which obtains cylinder LPG has the option of obtaining the cylinders from dealers directly rather than under the industrial LPG agreement.

31. The Authority has decided to grant a licence in this case to agreements which involve the exclusive purchase of bulk LPG for a period of up to five years, whereas in the LPG dealer category licence it only permitted exclusive purchasing agreements provided that these did not exceed two years in duration (6). This is because the Authority considers that the market conditions differ between the two situations. In particular, the dealer agreements resulted in the tying of a large proportion of all available retail outlets, which is not the case with the bulk LPG agreements.

32. In its assessment, the Authority has had regard to the approach adopted by the EU Commission to exclusive purchasing agreements, particularly those where the product is to be used in the production of another product, rather than for resale. In its Seventh Report on Competition Policy (7), the Commission stated:

(a) 'Exclusive purchasing agreements may endanger competition, because they limit the purchaser's freedom of choice and therefore at least potentially restrict the sales outlets open to other suppliers.' (p. 21).

(b) 'The applicability of Article 85(1) to exclusive purchasing and other such arrangements depends on whether or not the arrangement, either alone or in conjunction with other similar arrangements between the same or different firms, may appreciably affect entry to the market and sales by third parties.' (p. 23).

(c) 'The Commission considers that exclusive purchasing agreements can contribute to improving the production and distribution of goods, because they make it possible for the parties to the agreement to plan their production and sales more precisely and over a longer period, to limit the risk of market fluctuation and to lower the cost of production, storage and marketing.' (p. 23).

(d) 'However, exemption can only be given where the firms involved do not retain the whole of the benefit. Consumers must be allowed their fair share as well. The benefits must also be great enough to balance out the restrictions of competition they bring with them. These tests are not satisfied if the exclusive arrangements make it more difficult for other firms to sell on the market, and especially if they raise barriers to market entry.' (p. 24).

33. Blugas and their industrial customers are undertakings within the meaning of the Competition Act. The bulk LPG supply agreement is an agreement between undertakings. Because of the exclusive purchasing requirement in the agreement, it offends against Section 4(1) of the Act. Nevertheless, the Authority is of the opinion that all the conditions set out in Section 4(2) of the Competition Act have been fulfilled in respect of the agreement.

34. The Authority therefore grants a licence under Section 4(2) in respect of the notified standard Blugas bulk LPG supply agreement.

35. The licence shall apply from the date of this decision, that is 10 April 1995. It appears appropriate that the period specified for the licence should be ten years, that is until 9 April 2005.

36. Under Section 8(1) of the Competition Act, the Authority may grant a licence subject to such conditions as may be attached to and specified in the licence. Given the very large market share possessed by Flogas and Calor, the Authority considers that it is necessary to monitor developments in the market for bulk LPG in order to ensure that the conditions of Section 4(2) continue to be satisfied. Accordingly, the licence is issued subject to the following reporting conditions: that Blugas, every year before the end of April, submit to the Authority the following information:

(a) the total number of industrial LPG agreements (that is non-domestic bulk supply agreements) in operation at the end of the preceding year; and

(b) the total volume of sales, in tonnes, of industrial LPG to those customers in the preceding year.

The first of these reports, however, shall be submitted before the end of May 1995.

37. The Authority therefore grants the following licence to the agreement notified by Blugas:

The Competition Authority grants a licence to the standard Blugas bulk LPG supply agreement notified to the Competition Authority on 30 September 1992 (CA/540/92E), insofar as the buyers are undertakings within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 1991, on the grounds that, in the opinion of the Authority, all the conditions of Section 4(2) of the Competition Act have been fulfilled. This licence shall apply from 10 April 1995 to 19 April 2005.

Blugas shall every year before the end of April, send a report to the Authority covering the preceding year. The first of these reports, however, shall be submitted before the end of May 1995. The reports shall contain the following information:

(a) the total number of industrial LPG agreements (that is non-domestic bulk supply agreements) in operation at the end of the preceding year; and

(b) the total volume of sales, in tonnes, of industrial LPG to those customers in the preceding year.

1. Decision No. 364 of 28 October 1994.

2. Decision No. 361 of 13 October 1994

3. The High Court. Cases between Masterfoods Limited trading as Mars Ireland and H.B. Ice-Cream Limited, and between H.B. Ice Cream Limited and Masterfoods Limited trading as Mars Ireland. Judgment of Keane J., delivered on 28 May 1992 (not yet reported).

4. Decision of the Court of Justice of 28 February 1991 in the case of Stergios Delimitis v Henniger Brau A.G. [1991] ECR 1-935.

5. Commission notice modifying the notice concerning Regulations No. 1983/83 and No. 1984/83. OJ C121, 13.5.92, p. 2.

6. Op.cit.

7. EC Commission, Seventh Report on Competition Policy, 1977, Brussels, Luxembourg, April 1978.