PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) ON THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF AGREEMENTS, DECISIONS AND CONCERTED PRACTICES BETWEEN SHIPPING COMPANIES
Date: 1990-06-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competition, maritime law, maritime transport, price agreement, restrictive trade practice

COMMISSION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

C0MC90) 260 final 

Brussels, 18 June  1990 

COMMUNICATION  BY  THE  COMMISSION 

Report  on the possibility  of a group 

exemption  for  consortia  agreements  in  liner  shipping 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EEC) 

on the  application  of Article 85(3) of  the  Treaty 

to certain  categories  of agreements, decisions  and 

concerted  practices  between  shipping  companies 

(presented  by  the  Commission) 

- 1  -

Communication by the. Commission 

Report on t he possibility of a g r o up  exemption 

for  consortia  agreements  in liner  shipping 

1.  Introduction 

1.1.  In December  1986, at t he time of t he adoption of Regulation 

no.  4956/86, the Commission  undertook  to submit  within  o ne y e a r, a 

report  to t he Council on whether to provide f or block  exemptions 

for  consortia, and to m a ke  proposals to that  tffect if 

necessary 

(1 > 

1.2. As explained in the interim reports made to the Transport Working 

(2) 

(3) 

Group on 7 January 

and 29 November 1988 

, the Commission was 

unable despite its repeated efforts to complete its work within one 

year because the industry did not make available to it a sufficient 

number of consortia agreements to constitute a satisfactory basis 
for analysis. This was finally done in stages up to September 1989. 

2.  paçkflrouno: 

2.1.  T he Commission  is aware of present and prospective  developments and 

organisational  changes  in world  shipping a nd t he implications  which 

these m ay have  for t he Community's  shipping a nd competition 

policies. 

( 1)  S ee Council  D o c.  N o.  11584/86 MAR 84 of 19 December  1986  Annex III 

( 2)  See doc. N o. 4130/88 MAR 3 of 11.1.1988 

}  S ee doc. No 10048/88 MAR 38 of 13.12.1988 

- 2 -

Competition in the liner shipping industry has created the need for 

companies to be efficient in order to compete on the world market. 

The shipping industry is a capital intensive one, with a high 

proportion of fixed to variable costs. Ships therefore need to be 

as fully utilised as possible if the capital costs are to be 

covered. Individual enterprises acting alone without having strong 

financial resources are in a vulnerable position if heavy 

overcapacity shows itself on their particular trade routes. 

2.2. The development of container services has increased pressures for 

co-operation and rationalisation, especially on the longer deep sea 

trade routes. Because of the large amounts of cargo which can be 

handled daily from a containership, operators have been able to  use 

bigger ships without increasing, and indeed even reducing, port 

time. However, since the amount of cargo available remains much the 

same, fewer of the larger ships are needed to serve a particular 

trade. Community shipowners have difficulty to operate with 

container ships of the size needed to obtain the available 

economies scale and thus minimise costs, whilst maintaining a 

satisfactory frequency of service. 

2.3. Other related pressures towards closer association between 

operators on containerised trade routes were that: 

- the establishment of a container service necessitated an initial 

capital investment greater than that required to replace tonnage 

on conventional services. Individual lines therefore hesitated to 

make this investment on their own account; 

- container ships were less free to transfer from one trade to 

another because many were designed for a particular trade route; 

in addition many ports did not have the equipment and 

infrastructure to handle container ships (a problem which still 

exists in some developing countries) 

2.4. These pressures for cooperation led individual shipping lines to 

enter into joint fleet operations usually described as consortia. 

3.  Analysis of consortia agreements 

- 3 -

3.1. The Comité des Associations d'Armateurs des Communautés Européennes 

(CAACE) has provided the Commission with a list of consortia 

serving Europe showing the conference, the consortium and its 

members and indicating the scope of clauses included. A copy of the 

list is attached as Annex I. 

The Commission has also received copies of the 23 consortia 

agreements listed in Annex II. The Commission has been asked to 

treat the details of these agreements as confidential. 

3.2. The examination of the agreements in the possession of the 

Commission and of such information as has been given by CAACE and 

by others has permitted the following findings: 

(i)  There are approximately 57 consortia operating worldwide, at 

least 48 of which operate in Community  liner trades. The 

number of consortia in particular trade, their organisation 

and membership, and the scope and terms of the consortia 

agreements all vary. 

<ii)  The variety and complexity of the different arrangements is 

considerable. Almost the only common factor is that they are 

coalitions of several independent shipping lines seeking some 

form of co-operation in order to maintain profitability 

through rationalisation  in the widest sense and to spread the 

expense of investment  in container operations. Each could, in 

principle, be considered sui generis. However, a number of 

specific arrangements seem to be common to most consortia. 

/ 
/ 

- 4 -

(iiî) Joint, fleet.operations 

a) Joint schedule: 37 consortia 

b) Space/slot exchange: 37 

c) Equipment pool: 28 (in some cases optional or only amongst 

some members of the consortium) 

d) Joint operational office: 38 

<iv)  Terminals 

a) Joint terminal operation: 37 (in some cases only optional) 

b) Joint terminal contracts: 37 (in some cases optional or 

negotiated jointly but concluded separately) 

(v)  PQQlinff 

a) Cargo pool: 

b) Revenue pool: 

c) Net result pool: 

28 

28 

27 

(vi)  Conference riKhts 

5 consortia hold single voting rights in conferences in which 

they participate. 

4 consortia whilst not having formal voting rights in 

conferences do nevertheless act in that way. 

- 5 -

(vii) Marketinn 

a) Joint marketing: 18 

(some limited by regions) 

b) Joint bill of lading: 22 

(viii)joint price fiMina 

7 consortia have pricing fixing authority. 

CAACE has indicated that in some cases the consortium would 

have the authority to fix prices but that the "no" in the 

descriptive list means that it does not do so in practice. In 

some other trades the consortium operates either outside the 

conference or on routes where there is no conference. 

<ix>  Inland operatipna 

a) Joint consolidation: 18 (some are optional or limited by 

regions) 

b) Joint haulage: 16 (some are optional or limited by 

regions) 

<*>  Durât ion/terminatio,n 

Clauses concerning duration and termination of consortia 

agreements are not included in CAACE's list. Of the 23 

agreements examined by the Commission: 

a) Indefinite duration until cancellation/termination: 11 

b) Limited duration or without prolongation clause: 18 (2 

agreements do not contain clear provisions) 

-  6  -

c) Cancellation/termination 

36 months notice: 1 Agreement 

24 months notice: 2 

12 months notice: 6 

6 months notice: 8 

Specific rules: 4 

d) Without cancellation/termination clause: 1 

(xi)  Purposes/objectives of consortia agreements 

This aspect has not been dealt with by CAACE's descriptive 

list. In the 23 agreements the following clauses ore typical: 

"The purpose of the Agreement is to establish a joint 

service/consortium capable of securing the economies and 

advantages of modern shipping technology through coordinated 

management of roll-on/roll-off., container or similar modern 

vessels, and all related activities". 

"To enable the parties to operate a service as defined  in the 

agreement in the most economical and efficient way; to 

promote and maximize the trade and the movement of cargoes 

between the points and ports referred to". 

"The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize the parties to 

continue their joint service in the trades covered by this 

Agreement". 

"The purpose of this Agreement is to enable the parties 

collectively to establish and maintain a superior overfull 

common carrier shipping service, and thereby to promote to 

oceanborne commerce, in the trade between "... and ...". 

7 -

"The purpose of the Agreement  is to allow the partners hereto 

to operate as an ocean common carrier by direct call or 

intermodal through service under the name ... as provided 

herein". 

"The purpose of the Agreement  is to permit the parties to 

achieve efficiencies and economics in offering services in 

the trades covered by the Agreement". 

"To cooperate in the operation of a joint container service 

between  ... and the ... - including the inland movement of 

containers - for the purpose of achieving optimal economic 

results through operation of container vessels and sharing 

the outcome through money pool upon the terms and conditions 

set forth in the agreement". 

3.3. Multiple  membership 

a) According to the information available there are 47 European 

shipping lines participating  in 35 consortia serving European 

trades. (In the remaining 5 consortia serving European trades 

there seem to be no European shipping lines participating). 

Some of these shipping lines are members of more than one 

consortium : 

CGM 

Nedlloyd 

Hapag Lloyd 

P&OCL 

CMB 

Swedish Transocean 

Incotrans 

participates in 13 consortia 

" 

" 

" 

" 

" 

" 

12 

11 

7 

6 

5 

4 

-  8  -

5 lines each participate in 3 consortia 

7 lines each participate in 2 consortia 

Cunard 
EAC 
Charente  Harrisson 
E Herman 

Lloyd Triestino 

Uilh. Wilhelmsen 

Finncarriers 

Hoegh 

Johnson 

Wallenius 

DAL 

Delmas-Vieljeux 

b) Shipping lines which are members of a consortium are in many 

cases also member of a conference.  Some conferences have, 

among their members, the participants in more than one 

consortium.  For instance, as shown in Annex III, 

- the members of the consortia CAROL, EURO-Caribe, S.A.C. and 

Streamline are all members of the Association of West India 

Transatlantic Steamship Lines, the WITASS Conference; 

- the members of the consortia OMEX, Scan Dutch, TRIO, ACE and 

Med Club are members of the Far Eastern Freight Conference; 

It should be noted that there are also other situations in 

European liner shipping trades. Two examples might be cited: 

The Europe/Australia & New Zealand Conference used to have 

participants in four consortia among its members (ANZECS, 

ACT(A)ANL, Scancarriers and Scanbarber). Scancarriers was taken 

over by one of its members and Scanbarber as well as ACT(A)ANL 

were disbanded, so that this Conference is now almost  (except 

for Baltic Shipping Company) identical with the ANZECS 

consortium. As a second example, the UK West Africa Lines Joint 

Service (UKWAL) is a consortium which is also a conference. 

4.  Views of shipowners and shippers 

- 9 -

4.1. CAACE and CENSA have argued, in various submissions to the 

Commission, that Community shipping lines need to participate in 

consortia in order "not to be put at a disadvantage compared with 

their competitors, the single entity, multi-trade giants". In their 

view consortia are either excepted, as technical agreements, under 

Article 2 of Regulation No 4856/86, or are covered by the block 

exemption in Article 3 of the same regulation. For cases not so 

covered there should be a group exemption. These views were not 

shared by the Union of Greek shipowners who argued that the 

Commission should only grant individual exemptions, where 

appropriate. 

4.2.  The British Shippers' Council his informed thé Commission that, in 

its view, consortia are covered neither by Article 2 nor by 

Article 3 of Regulation No 4056/86 and that a new block exemption 

would be inappropriate. Individual exemptions should be granted 

only with special conditions and obligations. The European 

Shippers' Councils hold similar views, arguing that consortia 

should apply for individual exemption and that conditions and 

obligations, including an obligation to meaningful consultations 

with shippers, should be attached. 

5-  The Legal Status of Consortia 

The examination of the texts of consortia agreements which have been 

made available and of other information available to the Commission 

services has led to the following main conclusions: 

s.i. Consortia are not mergers 

The information available suggests that consortia could not be 

regarded as mergers between the parties, for several reasons: 

a) All available agreements contain provisions to terminate the 

agreement with different periods of notice. 

- 18 -

b) There is no evidence which suggests that any of the parties to 

these agreements or to other agreements described by CAACE 

either transferred all its assets or activities to the 

consortium, so as to become mere holding companies, or 

completely and irreversibly abandoned business in the area 

covered by the consortium. 

On the contrary, the parties to consortia agreements remain free 

to act independently on other routes, to join consortia 

involving other parties for other routes or to join consortia 

for other routes involving the same or almost the same parties, 

but on different terms. The findings on multiple membership 

indicate that this is the case for many shipping lines. 

5.2. Consortia are not purely technical arrangements 

The information available suggests that there are few if any 

consortia agreements whose sole object and effect are to achieve 

technical improvements or cooperation in the sense of Article 2 of 

Regulation No. 4056/86. 

All but two of the 23 agreements examined contain arrangements not 

only on joint fleet and terminal operations but also on pooling 

and/or conference rights, pricing, marketing or inland operations. 

One of the two exceptions concerns a Slot Charter Agreement 

containing arrangements on joint schedule and space/Pint exchange 

and arrangements on capacity restrictions for one of the parties 

regarding certain European ports. The other case concerns an 

agreement containing arrangements on joint fleet and terminal 

operations. However, it also provides for cost sharing arrangements 

for ships, administration and equipment. In addition it provides 

that conference trading rights may only be exercised by agreement 

of the consortium policy committee and that the parties, without 

having joint marketing, "may combine their interests". 

In all these cases the consortium's sole object and effect are not 

purely technical. 

- 11 -

There are, according to CAACE's descriptive list, some other 

consortia agreements limited to arrangements on joint fleet and 

terminal operations. However, these agreements cannot be regarded 

as purely technical since for instance one agreement also contains, 

inter alia, the parties' agreement to avoid unreasonable or unfair 

sales and marketing competition amongst themselves through a common 

freight policy. Such agreements restrict competition and cannot be 

considered as having exclusively technical objects and effects. 

Finally, the parties to consortia agreements regulate the use of 

their vessel capacities in given trade routes and are actual or 

potential competitors. 

For all these reasons consortia cannot, other than perhaps in very 

exceptional cases, be considered as falling within the scope of 

Article 2 of Council Regulation 4056/86. 

5.3. consortia are not covered by the conference black exemption 

a) Conferences are arrangements which exist essentially to ensure 

that their members charge the same rates of freight. Some 

conferences also agree members' participation in a particular 

trade (which is defined either as sailing rights, ie the right 

to berth x number of sailings per annum from one area to another 

or as percentage shares in the trade) or even 'pool' either 

earnings or liftings (freight tons) or both: the intention 

generally being to equate 'share' with earnings and liftings. 

Consortia are pursuing different objectives and are different in 

organisation. The size of container ships (say 3 to 6 

conventional ships = 1 container ship) means that most single 

shipping companies are no longer capable of providing, on their 

own a satisfactory liner service to shippers. To be viable, a 

shipping service must provide a frequent, say weekly, service to 

its customers. Rationalisation of schedules is, therefore, a 

sine qua non of liner shipping with each participating line 

being allocated slots for each sailing. This is not the role of 

conferences. 

- 12 -

Shipowners agree that consortia are different from conferences. 

b) (consortia agreements, restrict or eliminate competition 

between the parties in some or all of the following areas: 

- the provision and use of capacity and transport facilities 

- timings and sailings 

- marketing 

- inland operations 

- their policies as conference members and 

- price competition  (which is eliminated either by conference 

membership, or by arrangements in the consortium agreements 

which are to that extent equivalent to a conference 

agreement, or by some combination of the two). 

A considerable number of consortia agreements thus contain 

restrictive arrangements which go beyond the scope of Article 

3 of Council Regulation No 4056/86 and would therefore not be 

covered by the block exemption.for conferences, even if they 

could be considered as conference agreements. This is the 

case for most of the 23 agreements available to the 

Commission and it would also be the case for the majority of 

the other agreements mentioned  in CAACE's list. 

c) Consortia are increasingly concerned with combined sea/land 

door-to-door transport.  Multilateral agreements on combined 

sea/land transport are not covered by the conference block 

exemption, which applies only to the maritime sector. 

5.4. It follows that consortia agreements which restrict competition and 

affect trade between Member States must, if they are not to be 

considered null and void in accordance with Article 85(2) of the 

Treaty, be covered either by an individual or by a block exemption. 

In view of the number of consortia agreements and the need for 

shipowners to retain the flexibility necessary to change their 

agreements in response to changing competitive circumstances, it is 

- 13 -

desirable for administrative reasons to give a group exemption as 

far as possible. Accordingly the Commission has examined the scope 

for granting such a group exemption. 

6.  Proposal for a block exemption 

6.1. Justification 

The Community shipping industry needs to attain the necessary 

economies of scale to compete on the world liner shipping market. 

Consortia can help to provide the necessary means for improving the 

productivity of liner shipping services and promoting technical and 

economic progress by facilitating and encouraging the use of 

containers. 

Users of the shipping services offered by consortia obtain several 

important advantages. First, they are ensured regular sailings at 

prices which do not depend on which ships are used for their 

containers. Second, economies of sca.le in the use of ships and 

on-shore facilities are achieved. Third, since consortia tend to 

bring about higher levels of capacity utilisation, costs are 

reduced for this reason also. Fourth, consortia increase the 

quality of shipping services by using more modern ships and 

equipment as well as port facilities. Last, but not least, through 

provision of joint inland services they are responding to many 

shippers' requirements for efficient door-to-door transport. 

Thus, users can obtain a share of the benefits resulting from the 

improvement  in productivity and service. However, any group 

exemption must give a sufficient guarantee that consortia are able 

to realise their advantages to the fullest extent and that users 

get a fair share of the resulting rationalisation and reduction in 

costs. 

In order, therefore, to ensure that all the requirements of Article 

85(3) are met it would be necessary, inter alia, to attach to the 

block exemption certain conditions and/or obligations to ensure 

- 14 -

that a fair share of the benefits would be passed on to shippers 

and that competition in respect of a substantial part of the trades 

in question was not eliminated. 

6.2. Form 

A group exemption for consortia would need to be an independent, 

self-contained regulation, rather than an amendment or addition to 

any existing regulation, because 

- there is a great variety of different consortia arrangements 

operating under different circumstances; 

- consortia are a specialized form of joint ventures. Despite of 

the efforts of the Commission's services and the interested 

industries, it has proved impossible to draft a block exemption 

for joint ventures in general; 

- many consortia deal with multi-modal transport operations which 

fall partly within the scope of Regulation No 4056/86 and partly 

under Regulation No 1017/68 and, insofar as containers are 

concerned, partly under Regulation No 17/62; 

Consortia in liner shipping are a specialised and complex type of 

joint venture. Unlike most commercial and industrial joint ventures 

the scope, parties, activities and terms of consortia agreements 

are frequently altered. It would therefore, as well as for other 

reasons discussed above, be extremely difficult to decide which 

specific clauses and arrangements of consortia agreements should be 

permitted, and in what circumstances. It would also be undesirable 

to proceed in this way because it would often make legal advice 

necessary, and perhaps individual exemption by the Commission each 

time the terms of a consortium agreement are altered. A block 

exemption for consortia should therefore concentrate on clarifying 

the requirements under which consortia can be exempted from the 

prohibition of cartels pursuant Article 85(3) of the Treaty, rather 

than differentiating between consortia. 

- 15 -

6.3. gcope and content of the block exemption 

The block exemption would cover multi-modal as well as purely 

maritime consortia and would therefore be adopted on the basis of 

Regulation No 4856/86, No 1017/68 and No 17/62. 

The group exemption should cover as wide a variety as possible of 

the kinds of clauses which are found in consortia agreements. 

Since cooperation through consortia is a specific form of 

rationalisation cartels which goes further than conferences 

the Commission would need to attach some additional requirements to 

the block exemption. In fixing these requirements, e.g. certain 

conditions and/or obligations, the Commission must have regard not 

only to the interests of the shipping lines but also to those of 

shippers and of other transport modes who may compete with the land 

transport operations of members of consortia (for instance, road 

hauliers in respect of multi-modal consortia). 

The details of these requirements can only be fixed after further 

consultations with parties concerned and with Member States in the 

Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions. 

Nevertheless, as a preliminary statement, the Commission considers 

that it would be necessary, in particular, in order to make sure 

that the conditions of Article 85(3) are fulfilled : 

(i)  to ensure that a fair share of the efficiency and other 

benefits from consortia could be passed on to shippers; 

(ii>  to ensure that competition  in respect of a substantial 

portion of the whole trade is not eliminated or unduly 

restricted, for instance by agreements between consortia 

operating in the same trade; 

(iii) to provide a maximum period of notice for withdrawal without 

penalty by a participant line; 

• - 16 -

(iv)  to deal, in the case of multi-modal transport services 

offered by consortia,  with multilateral agreements with 

inland hauliers on through rates; 

(v)  to ensure non-discrimination between shippers or ports. 

In addition, there would need to be obligations relating, inter 

alia, to meaningful consultations with shippers, and rights for 

shippers to arrange their own inland haulage, if they wish. 

The group exemption for consortia will take account, among other 

things, of the fact that almost all members of consortia are also 

members of conferences governed by Regulation 4056; the 

requirements of the group exemption will deal with the additional 

limitations of competition brought about by consortia. 

6.4. The Commission considers that it would be desirable to grant a 

group exemption for consortia agreements. The Commission has 

thereby prepared the attached proposal  (Annex IV) for a Council 

Regulation which would empower the Commission to grant a block 

exemption for consortia on the lines set out above. This enabling 

regulation follows the standard lines of such regulations and 

accordingly does not call for any specific comments. 

The Commission  intends to clarify the position under competition 

law of multimodal transport containing a shipping leg 

simultaneously with the group exemption on consortia. 

CftACt 

Comit*  t"i«*  A s s o c i a t i o n*  d'Armatemre 

Commentetéa  Européennes 

A p r il 

l » fO 

Ceaf 

Consortia 

VIWC  lOTPfg 

Non  Conference 

OS-conference» 
(for  North 
A t l a n t ic  and 
Gulf) 

Canadian 
M.  A l t a n t lc 
E4.W  Bound 
F r e i g ht  Confe 
rences 

Johnson 
Scanstar 

Sagumex 

Blue  Star  Line  (UK).  East 
A s i a t ic  C"  (DK) 

Hapag  Lloyd  (D).  CGM  ( p ). 
GCL  (Cunard,  UK.  Incotrana, 
NL,  Swedish  Tranaocean, 
Wallenius.  S) 

St.Lawrence 
Co-ordinated 
S e r v i c es 

Canada  Mariti»e  -  comprising 
CMB  (B>  fc  CP  Ships  (Can) 
and  HL Containerline  (UK) 

A s s o c i a t i on  of 
w.  India  Trans 
a t l a n t ic  Steam 
Ship  Lines 

Caribbean 
Overseas 
Lines 
(CAROL) 

Charente  Steamship  c*  Ltd 
(TfcJ  Harrison  Nanaqers) 
(UK),  Napag-Lloyd  (D). 
Itedlloyd  (HL).  CGM  (F) 

tteet  maeratl OM  J  I  Tvrmlaalal  | 

>—Urns 

| F&il«^tttl 

>*t. II 
:l>fJ|sps*otl— 

lelmms 

- 1-

? 

• ** m.3 

St 

4* 

Vi 
« 
-« e 

•  m 
•* « 

2 
1. 
li » 

I* 

S 
8 

t 
5  It 
1 
tS 
IZ !  i 
JUL 

I HL 

1*1 

tl 

2* 

S 
•ri 
4» 

12. 

JJL 

JLL  02. 

yes 

yes 

yea 

yes 

yea 

yes 

yes 

yea 

no 

yea 

yea 

yea 

yea 

yea 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

.no 

no 

no 

yes 

y es 

no 

yea 

yes 

yes 
(D) 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yea 

yea 

yes 

yea 

yea  yea 

no 

yes 

no 

no 

yea 

yea 

no 
y es 
for 
Ree 
f er 

A s s o c i a t i on  of 
w.  India  Trans 
a t l a n t ic 
tteasi 
Ship  Lines 
rwiTASS) 

SAC 

llapag-Lloyd  (D). 
Nicaragua  n a t i o n al  Line 

yes 

yes 

yea 

no 

yes 

yea 

yea 

yea 

yea 

no 

yea 

yea 

«A» 

in  some  c a s e s,  the  consortium  would  have  the  a u t h o r i ty  to  p r i c e - f ix  but  the  "no"  r e f l e c ts  t h at 

it  does  not  do  s o. 

(B)  N e g o t i a t ed  and  agreed  j o i n t l y,  and  indent ici»),  but  not 

ite  f a ct  " j o i nt  c o n t r a c t a ". 

(F.) 

In  s o s*  t r a d e e.  t he  consortium  r>p*rstes  e i t h er 

o u t s i de  the  conference  or  on  routes  where  ther-ï 

ir.  no  c o n f e r e n c e. 

Tn  nurli  c a s es  t he  consortium  Is  engaged 

in  j o i nt  p r i e*  fi'-*.^i. 

i 

jr. 
m 

CAACE 

- 2-

ffc)  I«i  mmmm  C M M,  tlw  c<MUN>rtl«m MWM  «•«•  ttw  Mttmrlty  to  p r l e « - t l«  tot  t to  • • ••  r«Cl«ct«  t t ot  it  «OM  Mt  «•  • ». 

CAMS 

- 3-

-"  * * **  * • • • •• 

th*  cessattt—  »aaM  to*t  eto  •wtha^ty  to  pv>c«.ffN  tot  t to  "nrn" r»ft«cta  t>>«t  it  « M»  w t * > ». 

<p>  ttasu.  is  toth  t to  eofteartiaai  ana  t to  raMcr***?*. 

to  * t t t * r.  tt  an#»«jee  In  }«»«•*  f u I c a - f l « t n *. 

•wtaMe  t to  esafaramra  av 
totals* 

t to  esafere*ca  a*  an  roataa  *»hi»ra  »Hin  t»  ne C0»f>ren?».  J*  awe*  cseec,  t to  eonaertlto  1*  anoaeaf 

f«>  la  tow*  trasas,  t to  ronaorttas  <if*r»t«*  »l*->«r 

|C»  f.l«tt««  to  fasts**. 

in  )*••*  salee-flals**. 

CAACE 

Cenferenee 

Conaoitla 

Fleet  ape rat lane  11 »„i..un Pooling 

leant 
>lgami 

ri|Mae*etleaJ  pern 

lalaae 
rattat 

L 

• 

t  a 

F 
c  c 
-4  O 
o-« 

St 

e  i* 
08. 
x-»0 

fin 
»  40 
*0  v 
a 

00  u ît 

«-•  v 

am» 

I 

I 

*  1 
•53 
«4 C  H Soil 

¥  VF 
10 

il 

m» 

.2UL 
ia_ 

(A) 

m» 

I 
u 
40 4 •4 
il 

14 

S3 
11 

ZUL 
Jl 

taréet/BR 
Conference 

.lead 
Centaiaer 
Bervleee 

Bllemaa  (BR),  Faraeea  Nitby  (OK), 
Sim  (la) 

yee 

yea 

yea 

yee 

no 

ao 

reece  -  Tttrkey 
eeetorence  -
N.  Barepe  Egypt 
Conferi 

Bear Beet 
Container 
Line 

(D),  RNffji  (ML) 

yea 

yee 

yea 

yes 

yee 

yss 

lerael-Seanilaa-
vlaa  Aaaoclatli 

Swedish 
Orient  Linee 
IF) 

Swedleh  Traaaoeeea  (S) A 
Flancarriara  (rin) 

Indian 
laUad  Coofe-

IC 

CON |F).  Hapag  Lloyd  fD). 
BtMP  (F),  Seal  (D).  MRU 

).  SNC  (F) 

yea 

yee 

yea 

yea 

yea 

yea 

(AI  In  eana  ceaea.  the  concert lam weald  bava  tb*  authority  to  price-fin  bet  tHe  'ao"  reflect*  that  It  doe*  not 
IT)  am BEC m*ab«ca  bet  eporete  te/fran  EEC porta. 

t 
3 

a 

JlS_ 
e* 
mê 
a 

I 

o 

CAACE 

1 

F l e et  o p e r a t i o ns  1 

1 

-r 

J  Peeling 

1  T o r m l a a 1 e| 

.  I *: 

a 
-4 
a 

a 
• 
40 
c 
«4 
a 
1 

40 

2e if 

e  ° 
m  • 
23 

40 
e 

I 
.: 
it 
o 
I 
• 

m4 

o -« 
« r * 4* 4 

l\ 

m4 

2 

•4 u 

4*  «4 
40 
40  a 
C  «4 

of. 
S 

I 
E. 

m  4» 
40  a 

«e 
e« 

A 

9» 

I 

e 
9 
c 
e > 
a 
14 B 

I 
I 

M 
a 
a 1. 

c e n f .l 

1 
1 

a
d
l
e
h

a
t
h
a
l
r

e
n
l
t
a
v

e
c
n
e
r
e
f
n
o
c

a
i
t
r
e
a
n
o
c

10 

40 
m-
9 
m 
a 
•4 

40 
a 
e 
9 

1  M a r k e t i n g] 

Pig 

| 
1 
t a l e ma 
f a a e r a t l o n a] 

-5 

•4 

r 
40 I 
I 
3 
a 
11 

4Ê  • 

*

e
c
i
r
p

g
n
i
x
i
f

t
n
i
o
j

11 

J 
4 

40 

40  a 

!i 

14 

• 
a 
J! 
4.* 
C 
m* 
o 

is 

n 
«4 

a -* 
•a 
• 

44 

e — 

* »o U 

yee 

y ea 

no 

no 

y ee 

y ea 

yea 

no 

no 

no 

no 

aa 

no 

ae 

ao 

C o n f e r e n ce 

C o n c e r t la 

tiEÊSQÈIÎkJEÊPtlWB  EoeofR 

Meabere 

F ar  t e at  F r è t e nt 
C o n f e r e n ce 

ACS 

BOL  (Sieg),00CL  (MR).  Korea 
Shippine  Corp. 
Tans  Shippine 

( S . K . e . ).  Cbo 
( S . K . o .) 

E n t e n te  da  F r et 
dee  L l g a ae  da 
N a v i g a t i on 
S e r v a nt  Papaeta 

Bank  a, 
Coloabaa 

Sank  L l ae  (OK),  Coleabaa  L l aa 
(D) 

yes 

y ee 

y ee 

no 

y ea 

y ea 

yee 

y ee 

y ee 

ao 

y ea 

yee 

no 

yea 

(C) 

( E) 

y ea 

( CI 

l a m a a e e l ea 
C o n f e r e a ce 

(F) 

I n d o n e s ia 
M a t.  L i n es 
D j a e e e e t rl 

I 
D j a k a r ta  Lloyd 
] 
o a a o rl  L l e yi 
| 
T r l k o rs  Lloyd 
Saaedera  ladoneele) 

, 
, ,, 
t m >) 

» 

? 

7 

7 

t 

T 

» 

7 

t 

T 

» 

F 

» 

» 

T 

F ar  C a e t e ra 
F r a i e nt  C o n f e 
r e n ce 
-
FE) 

( I t a ly 

NFECS 
(Hedcleb) 

RCHP  ( F ),  L l o yd  T r i e s t i no 
MOL  ( J ),  NYK 
( T a i w a n,  Hong  K o n g,  S i n g a p o r e. 
S o u th  K o r e a) 

( J ),  OMEX 

( I ), 

y es 

y es 

y ei 

y e* 

y ea 

y ea 

y es 

y on 

y ee 

no 

no 

y es 

no 

no 

no 

1AI 
ta) 

la  sane  eaaee.  the  L sneer I la*  woal«J  bsv*  the  aatborlty  to  price-fix  bat  the  "ao*  reflect*  «*•*  It  doee  not  da 
traeee,  the  ro*eortl«e  operatee  either  ovicide  the  conference  or  on  roetee  where  there  ie  no  conferee 
la 
ia  engaged  in  joint  prlce-f ixlntj.  (r)  ne  rcc  aeabere  bet  operate  to/bom  EEC parte. 

(C)  Limited  by  regtene. 
In  each  eaaee.  the  coneortli 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CAACE 

1 

F l e et  e p e r a t l a ne  1 

[  « e r m l a e l e fj 

Fooling 

C o n f e r e n ce 

Coaanrtla 

Reamers 

40 

1 
a *** 
4 
m 
a 
4* 
t 
-4 
a 1 

•  • 
2 

temeneelo 
Barepe  F r e i g ht 
Conference 

W999C9/9ÊÊ 
Xaeoneele 
S e r v i ce 

Madlleyd  (ML), SAC  (OR). 
Swedleh  Traneacaaa  ( 5 ). 
Wllh.  Wlhelaeen  (M) 

yee 

yea 

i 

04 

I 

40 
e 

-4 

I 
i 3 

y ee 

•4) 

40 

t 
«4 u 4*«* 
tz 
•J 
!*• 

_} 

to  «. 
ÏS 
O 

m» 

tt 
•4  O 
• "Î 
V*40 
4 

yea 

w4 

•  «4 
40  U 

I 
~4 e. 
*t 
Si 

4 

— 
I 
t 

•4 
e 
a 
1 

#4 

I 

e 
9 
c 
: 
e 
44 B 

yee 

yea 

yea 

yee 

no 

- b-

pîl;J 

1 
1 
l a l a ne 
| o a e r et  l o n e] 

|  M a r k e t i ng J 

1 
tel 
r 
I 

s
d
l
o
h

—

e
t
h
e
l
r

e
n
i
t
o
v

t
 i
t
r
o
t
n
o
c

e
c
n
e
r
e
f
n
o
c
IO 

40 
0* 
9 
m 
e 
M 
00 
e 
e 
9 

-4 
40 

S 

4» 

1 

40 

S 
11 
0 
y ee 

(A) 

e 
V 
to 

13 

e 
«4 

m — 
m 
•!  • a-* 
«4 °* 
~0 12 

t 

m» 
40 

4 

II 

14 

• 
m» 
9 

2 
«y 
c 
art e ** 
1* 

y ee 

ne 

y ee 

y ea 

F ar  S a n t e ra 
F r e i g ht  Confe 
r e n ce 

Oman  IF) 

Cbe  Tang  Shippiag  ( f.  Kor) " 
BOL  (Sing).  OOCL (NK) 

7 

? 

» 

7 

7 

7 

» 

T 

7 

T 

7 

7 

T 

T 

7 

F or  S a n t e ra 
F r e i g ht  Confe 
r e n ce 

tcanbvtck 

OSN  ( F ).  Beat  A s i a t ic  Ce.  fBR) 
Nedlioyd  (ML),  Swedleh  Traaeeceaa 
I S ),  « l i b.  wilbalmaaa  (B) 

yee 

y ee 

y ee 

yee 

yee 

y ee 

f*c 

yea 

yea 

no 

y ee 

yee 

ne 

y ee 

yea 

g 

P er  S a e t em 
F r e i g ht  Confe 
r e n ce 

T r io 

emesjpe/ 
n e e t r o l la  s> 
N . B.  c o n f e 
r e n ce 

PfcOCL  (OR)  Ben  L i ne 
Napae-Lloyd 
N i t a al  OSK  (J) 

(B),  BTR ( J ), 

(UK), * 

yea 

y ee 

ao 

yea 

yee 

y ee 

! •» 

yee 

•! 

CON  ( F ).  Bapag-Llovd  (B), 
Lloyd  Trieatlna  (X),  Bedlloyd 
(PLOCL  (OK),  SCNZ  (H2) 

yee 

y ee 

y ee 
(0) 

«•» 

y ea 

y ee 

yee 

yee 

yen 
(CI 

? •• 

•». 

y ee 
(C) 

y ee 
(Cl 

yea 
w i ly 
f or 
• e e-

(AI 
in 
(FI  «a SEC 

eeeee.  tba  convection  would  have  the  authority  ta  prlce-f I*  bet  the 

~ ire  bat  operate  te/fron  SEC porte, 

(o)  fteong  eone  manbara. 

»" r e f l e e te  that  It  deea  not  de  a e. 

(C)  Limited  by  regieae. 

 
 
 
 
 
CAACE 

-7-

(A)  In soste eases, the consortia*) would have the authority to price-fix last the "no" reflects that It doss not so . 
(ft)  Negotiated and agreed jointly, and identical, but not in fact "Joint contracts". 

CAACE 

e 

Cemfetmece 

essentia 

Meamera 

| 

e 
w4 
i 
09 e • 

40 
G 
«4 

e 1 

-1 

0» 

I 
ft 
40 
e 
I 
I! 2 
«4 I 3 

1 
—4 Si 
38 

40-04 
40 

s 

a 
ti 

-4  a 
4"» 4» 4 

04) 

1 
f. 
a  00 
•0  e m 
ÎÏ 
s 
*-e 

40  «4 

04 I 
t m 

40 
1 

0m 

«4 

IM 
y 
f 
I 
00 i 
1 
1 
to 
3 
4* 
S 
e^ 
H 
» 

six 
Mi 

IO 

40 
04 

- 7 a-

• 

Inlnnd 
aparatlaee 

- ii 

IA| 

e 

04 2! 

4 »! 

e 

b 

1 

«4 
44 

4 

-4 
of 

12 

11 

.11 

I 
m 
m» 
9 

4J s o 

T-
IS  . 

Fleet  operetli 

[  Terminale] 

1 

Peeling 

Market tag || 

NEUSARA/ 
USAMERA 

Sago 

ACL,  CGN,  (F),  Hapag-Lloyd 
(D) 

yea 

yea 

no 

yea 

yea 

yea 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

4-4 

I 
i 

• 
• 
to 
no 

North  Ear. 
North Am. 
Space  char 
ter  and 
aalling 
agreement 

Vesael 
aharing 
agreement 

Teasel 
sharing 
agreement 

SEUSA/ 
MMRA 

CON  (F),  Rapng-Lloyd  (D). 
Incotrana  (N),  PfcOCL  (UK). 
Medlloyd  (N),  Sea land 
(US) 

yea 

yea 

no 

yea 

yea 

yea 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

Nedlloyd  (N),  FtOCL  (UK), 
Sea land  (US) 

yes 

yea 

no 

no 

yea 

yen 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

Nedlloyd  (B),  PCOCL  (UK), 
Sealand  (US),  CTE  (E) 

yea 

yea 

no 

no 

yea 

yea 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

Mexico 

ACL.  Tecomar  (M) 

yea 

yea 

no 

no 

yes 

yee 

no 

no 

no 

no 

BO 

no 

no 

no 

no 

(A) 

In  some  cases,  the  consortium  would  neve  the  a u t h o r i ty  to  p r i c e - f ix  but  the  "no"  re fleet a  that  it  doom  not  mo. 

.zs. 

ANNEX II 

List of consortia aereement* rocoivd bv tho CcMnmisgion 

ANZECS 

BEACON 

CAROL Operating Agreement 

(these three agreements submitted by CAACE in 1987) 

ACL 

Bean Carriers 
Scan Dutch 

(these three agreements submitted by their representatives in 1988) 

TRIO 

Nedscans Letter of Intent 

Johnson ScanStar 

EUROSAL 

Swedish Orient Line Agreement 

West Coast UK Arab Service Operating Agreement 

Stresmlin* Joint Liner Service Agreement 

Canada Maritime Slot Charter Agreement 

COSEUA Common Services 

S.C.A.D.O.A. - Service Commun d'Armements Desservant  l'Ouest Africa: 

Joint Container Service Europe - East Coast South America 

COBRA Operating Agreement  (covering Phase I) 

Fed Sec Express Service (former CAMEL Merzario) 

<all these agreements submitted by CAACE in 1989) 

CAROL Lines Joint Service Agreement 

Trans Freight Lines Joint Venture Agreement 

Pacific Europe Express Joint Service Agreement 

Italia - d'Amico Joint Service Agreement 

(these four agreements received from the Federal Maritime Commissio 

Washington D.C.) 

(MULTIPLE MEMBERSHIPS OF LINES/CONSORTIA/CONFERENCES) 

FAR EASTERN FREIGHT CONFERENCE 

OMEX 

SCANOUTCH 

TRIO 

ACE 

MEO CLUB 

Cho Yang Shipping  (SKO) CGM (F) 

PftOCL  (UK) 

Nedlloyd (ML) 

Ben  Line  (UK) 

NOL  (Sing) 

OOCL (UK) 

? 

(F) 

Lloyd Triestino (I) 

NOL (Sing) 

OOCL (H.K.) 

East Asiatic (DK) 

Hapag  Lloyd  (0) 

Korea Shipp. Corp. (SKO) 

NOL  (Sing.) 

WilheUsen  (N) 

NYK  (J) 

Cho Yang Shipp. (SKO) 

NYK (J) 

Swedish  Transocean  (S)  Mitsui  OSK  (J) 

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (J) 

OMEX 

(Taiwan, Hong Kong, 

Singapore, South Korea) 

z 

'n 

(MULTIPLE MEMBERSHIP  LINES/COMSORTIA/CONFEIcEMCES) 

MEUSARA  / USANERA 

US/EUROPE RATE  AGREEMENTS 

ACL 

Pacif. Eurax. 
Express  JS/HL/PEX 

SAGUNEX 

NEW ? 

Johnson  Scanstar 

Swedish Trans 

Vatlènius 

Cunard*(tjK) 

Blue  Star  (UK) 

East  Asiatic  (DIC) 

Johnson Line  (S) 

CTE  (Ê) 

CONFERENCE 

ASSOCIATION OF WEST INDIA TRANSATLANTIC  STEAMSHIP LINES 

W.l.T.A.S.S. 

CAROL! 

EURO-CARIBE 

SAC 

STREAMLINE 

Coapagnie 

Hapag Lloyd 

Générale Naritiae 

(0) 

(F) 

edlloyd 

(NL) 

Charente Steanship Co. 

(UK) 

Nicaragua 

Nat. Line  (Nicar.) 

Johnson Line 

Firm carriers  (Fine) 

Royal Mail Lines  (UK) 

Flomerca  (Guatemala) 

is 

4 L *-

ANNEX IV 

COUNCIL REGULATION  (EEC) No 

QL. 

On the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain catégories 
of  agreements,  decisions  and  concerted  practices  between  shipping 
companies. 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Economic 
Community, and  in particular Article 87 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission , 
Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament , 
Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee", 

2 

Whereas  Article  85(1)  of  the  Treaty  may  in  accordance  with  Article 
85(3) be declared  inapplicable to categorj.es of agreements,  decisions 
and  concerted  practices  which  fulfil  the  conditions  contained  in 
Article 85(3); 

Whereas the provisions  for  the  application  of Article  85(3) should  be 
adopted by way of Regulation pursuant to Article 87; whereas, according 
to Article 87(2)(b), such a Regulation must lay down detailed rules for 
the  application  of  Article  85(3),  taking  into  account  the  need  to 
ensure  effective  supervision,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  simplify 
administration to the greatest  possible extent  on the  other;  whereas, 
according to Article 87(2)(d),  such a Regulation is required to define 
the respective functions of the Commission and of the Court of Justice; 

1O.J. 

2O.J. 

3O.J. 

Whereas  liner  shipping  is  a  capital  intensive  industry;  whereas 

containerization  has  increasest  pressures  for  co-operation  and 

rationalisation;  whereas  the  Community  shipping  industry  neods  to 

attain  the  necessary  economies  of  scale  in  order  to  compete 

successfully on the world liner shipping market; 

Whereas joint  service agreements between liner shipping companies with 

the  aim  of  rationalising  their  operations  by  means  of  technical, 

operational  and/or  commercial  arrangements  (described  in  shipping 

circles  as  consortia)  can  help  to  provide  the  necessary  means  for 

improving  the  productivity  of  liner  shipping  services  and  promoting 

technical and economic progress; 

Whereas users of the shipping services offered  by consortia  can obtain 

a share of the benefits resulting from the improvements in productivity 

and service,  by means of,  inter alia,  regularity,  cost  reductions 

derived  from  higher  levels  of  capacity  utilization,  better  service 

quality  stemming  from  improved  vessels  and  equipment,  and  efficient 

door-to-door transport; 

Whereas most consortia deal with multi-modal transport operations which 

fall  partly  within  the scope  of Council  Regulation  (EEC) No 4056/86 

L 

5 

and partly under Council Regulation  (EEC) No 1017/68  and,  insofar as 

containers  are  concerned,  partly  under  Regulation  No  17/62  of  the 

Council ; 

Whereas  the  Commission  should  be  enabled  to  declare  by  way  of 

regulation that the provisions of Article 85(1) do not apply to certain 

categories of consortia agreements,  decisions and concerted practices, 

A0.J. No L378, 31.12.1986, p.  A. 

5O.J. No L175, 23.7.1968, p. 1; (Special edition 1968 I, p. 302). 

6O.J. No 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62; (Special edition 1959-1962, p. 87) 

- 31-

in order to make  it easier for undertakings to cooperate  in ways which 

are economically desirable and without adverse effect from the point of 

view of competition policy; 

Whereas  the  Commission,  in  close  and  constant  liaison  with  the 

competent authorities of the Member  States,  should  be able to define 

precisely the scope of these exemptions and the conditions attached to 

them; 

Whereas consortia in liner shipping are a specialized and complex type 

of  joint  venture;  whereas  there  is  a  great  variety  of  different 

consortia agreements operating in different circumstances;  whereas the 

scope,  parties,  activities  or  terms  of  consortia  are  frequently 

altered;  whereas  the  Commission  should  therefore  be  given  the 

responsibility of defining from time to time the consortia to which the 

group exemption should apply; 

Whereas,  in order to ensure that  all the conditions of Article 85(3) 

are  met  it  would  be  necessary  to  attach  to  the  block  exemption 

conditions to ensure  in  particular  that  a fair  share of  the benefits 

would be passed on to shippers and that competition  is not eliminated; 

Whereas  under  Article  11(4)  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC) No  4856/86, 

Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68,  and Article 6 of 

Regulation No  17 of  the  Council,  the  Commission  may  provide  that  a 

decision  taken  in  accordance  with  Article  85(3)  of  the  Treaty  shall 

apply  with  retroactive  effect;  whereas  it  is  desirable  that  the 

Commission be empowered to adopt, by regulation, provisions to the like 

effect; 

Whereas notification of agreements,  decisions and concerted  practices 

falling  within  the  scope  of  this  regulation  shall  not  be  made 

compulsory,  being primarily the responsability of undertakings to see 

to it that they conform to the rules on competition,  and in particular 

to  the  conditions  laid  down  by  regulation  concerning  liner  shipping 

consortia; 

-iV 

Whereas there can be no exemption  if the conditions set  out in Article 

85(3) are not satisfied;  whereas the Commission should  therefore have 

power  to  take  the  appropriate  measures  where  an  agreement  proves  to 

have effects  incompatible  with Article  85(3);  whereas  the  Commission 

should  consequently  be  able  first  to  address  recommendations  to  the 

parties and then to take decisions; 

HA8 ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

ARTICLE 1 

1. Without  prejudice  to  the  applications  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No 

4056/86,  Regulation  (EEC) No  1017/68  and  Regulation  No  17,  the 

Commission  may,  by regulation and in accordance with Article 85(3) 

of  the  Treaty,  declare  that  Article  85(1)  shall  not  apply  to 

categories  of  agreements  between  undertakings, 

decisions  of 

associations of  undertakings  and  concerted  practices  that  have  as 

their  object  to  promote  or  establish  cooperation  in  the  joint 

operation of maritime transport services or of combined maritime and 

land transport services. 

2. Such regulation shall define the categories of agreements, decisions 

and  concerted  practices to  which  it  applies and  shall  specify  the 

conditions and obligations under which, pursuant to Article 85(3) of 

the Treaty,  they shall be considered  exempted from  the application 

of Article 85(1) of the Treaty. 

ARTICLE 2 

1. The Regulation pursuant  to Article  1 shall be made for a specified 

period. 

2. It may be repealed or amended where circumstances have  changed with 

respect to any of the facts which were basic to its being made. 

•& 

ARTICLE 3 

The regulation  adopted pursuant  to Article  1 may  include a  provision 

t!-;.-ii- i! r»pp1if>'-. with retroactive effect  to agreement?,  <W- j'-,ior/.  ."wl 

c-ricerted practices which were  in existence at  the date of  •••ntry into 

force  of  such  regulation,  provided  they  comply  with  the  conditions 

established therein. 

ARTICLE 4 

Before adopting  the regulation,  the Commission shall publish  a draft 

thereof  to  enable  all  persons  and  organizations  concerned  to  submit 

their comments within such reasonable time  limit,  being not less than 

one month, as the Commission shall fix. 

ARTICLE 5 

1. Before  publishing  the  draft  regulation  and  before  adopting  the 

regulation the Commission shall consult: 

a) The  Advisory  Committee  on  Agreements  and  Dominant  Position  in 

Maritime  Transport  established  by  Article  15(3)  of  Regulation 

(EEC) No 4056/86; 

b) the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Monopolies in 

the Transport Industry established by Article 16(3) of Regulation 

(EEC) No 1017/68; 

c) the  Advisory  Committee  on  Restrictive  Practices  and  Monopolies 

established by Article 10(3) of Regulation 17. 

2. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of said provisions, relating to consultation with 

the Advisory Committees, shall apply, it being understood that joint 

meetings with the Commission  shall take place not earlier  than one 

month after dispatch of the notice convening them. 

ZH 

ARTICLE 6 

1. Where  the  persons  concerned  are  in  breach  of  a  condition  or 

obligation which attaches to an exemption granted by  the Regulation 

adopted pursuant to Article 1.  the Commission  may, in order to put 

an end to such a breach: 

- address recommendations to the persons concerned, and 

- in  the  event  of  failure  by  such  persons  to  observe  those 

recommendations,  and  depending  on  the  gravity  of  the  breach 

concerned,  adopt  a  decision  that  either  prohibits  them  from 

carrying out, or requires them to perform, specific acts or, while 

withdrawing the benefit of the block exemption which they enjoyed, 

grants  them  an  individual  exemption  in  accordance  with  Article 

11(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86,  Article 11(4) of Regulation 

(EEC)  No  1017/68  and  Article  6  of  Regulation  No  17,  as 

appropriate, or withdraws the benefit.of the block exemption which 

they enjoyed. 

2. Where the Commission, either on its own initiative or at the request 

of  a  Member  State  or  of  natural  or  legal  persons  claiming  a 

legitimate interest, finds that in any particular case an agreement, 

decision or concerted practice to which the block  exemption granted 

by  the  regulation  adopted  pursuant  to  Article  1  applies, 

nevertheless has effects which are  incompatible with  Article 85(3) 

or are prohibited by Article 86,  it may withdraw the benefit of the 

block  exemption  from  those  agreements,  decisions  or  concerted 

practices  and  take  all  appropriate  measures  for  the  purpose  of 

bringing these  infringements to an end,  pursuant  to Article  13 of 

Regulation  (EEC)  No  4056/86,  Article  13  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No 

1017/68 and Article 8 of Regulation No 17, as appropriate. 

3. Before  taking  a  decision  under  paragraph  2,  the  Commission  may 

address recommendations  for termination  of the  infringement  to the 

persons concerned. 

3s: 

ARTICLE 7 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  following  its 

publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 

This  Regulation  shall  be  binding  in  its  entirety  and  directly 

applicable in all Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 

The President 

t 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(90) 260 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

07 

Catalogue number : CB-CO-90-287-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-61376-9 

PRICE 

1 - 30 pages: 3J0 ECU 

per additional 10 pages: 1.25 ECU 

Office  for Officiai Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg