# C_2005003EN.01000201.xml

| 6.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 375th meeting on 14 June 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges

th

(2005/C 3/02)

| 1. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the Belgian Architects' Association may be considered to be an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty when it adopts a regulation such as Ethical Standard No 2. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the Belgian Architects' Association may be considered to be an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty when it adopts a regulation such as Ethical Standard No 2.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the decision by which the minimum fee scale known as Ethical Standard No 2 was adopted has to be considered to be a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the decision by which the minimum fee scale known as Ethical Standard No 2 was adopted has to be considered to be a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty.

| 3. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the Ethical Standard No 2 has as its object the restriction of competition within the common market, within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty as a result of which it is not required to define the market or demonstrate that the decision has effectively restricted competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the Ethical Standard No 2 has as its object the restriction of competition within the common market, within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty as a result of which it is not required to define the market or demonstrate that the decision has effectively restricted competition.

| 4. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in this case the decision made by the association of undertakings is liable to affect trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in this case the decision made by the association of undertakings is liable to affect trade between Member States.

| 5. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the exception of the ‘Wouters’ case law is not applicable. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the exception of the ‘Wouters’ case law is not applicable.

| 6. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that there are no grounds as found in Article 81(3) of the Treaty for declaring the provisions of Article 81(1) inapplicable in this case. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that there are no grounds as found in Article 81(3) of the Treaty for declaring the provisions of Article 81(1) inapplicable in this case.

| 7. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that despite the arguments laid down by the Association a fine can be imposed. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that despite the arguments laid down by the Association a fine can be imposed.

| 8. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the gravity and duration of the infringement as a result of which the starting amount will be increased by 350 %. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the gravity and duration of the infringement as a result of which the starting amount will be increased by 350 %.

| 9. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the Commission accurately and fully presented all relevant circumstances concerning the fine |
| --- | --- |

9.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the Commission accurately and fully presented all relevant circumstances concerning the fine

| 10. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the relevance that was attributed to these circumstances as a result of which a moderate fine will be imposed. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the relevance that was attributed to these circumstances as a result of which a moderate fine will be imposed.

| 11. | The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

| 12. | The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---