WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, CORRESPONDS TO THE NATURE AND SPIRIT OF A LEGAL AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP OF THE KIND IN QUESTION .
480 IN FACT, IF SUCH AN AGENT WORKS FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS PRINCIPAL HE MAY IN PRINCIPLE BE TREATED AS AN AUXILIARY ORGAN FORMING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE LATTER'S UNDERTAKING, WHO MUST CARRY OUT HIS PRINCIPAL'S INSTRUCTIONS AND THUS, LIKE A COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEE, FORMS AN ECONOMIC UNIT WITH THIS UNDERTAKING .
481 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ABUSE IS NOT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PRINCIPAL FORBIDS SUCH AN AUXILIARY ORGAN, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, TO TRADE IN PRODUCTS WHICH COULD COMPETE WITH HIS OWN .
482 THE POSITION IS DIFFERENT IF THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL AND HIS AGENTS, WHOM THE CONTRACTING PARTIES CALL 'TRADE REPRESENTATIVES', CONFER UPON THESE AGENTS OR ALLOW THEM TO PERFORM DUTIES WHICH FROM AN ECONOMIC POINT OF VIEW ARE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS THOSE CARRIED OUT BY AN INDEPENDENT DEALER, BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE FOR THE SAID AGENTS ACCEPTING THE FINANCIAL RISKS OF THE SALES OR OF THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO WITH THIRD PARTIES .
483 IN FACT IN SUCH A CASE THE AGENTS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS AUXILIARY ORGANS FORMING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PRINCIPAL'S UNDERTAKING WITH THE RESULT THAT, IF A CLAUSE PROHIBITING COMPETITION IS AGREED BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND AGENT AND THE PRINCIPAL IS AN UNDERTAKING OCCUPYING A DOMINANT POSITION, THAT CLAUSE MAY CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 86 AS IT IS LIKELY TO CONSOLIDATE THAT DOMINANT POSITION .
484 HOWEVER THE COMMISSION HAS NOT ALLEGED AND THE AGREEMENTS PRODUCED FOR THE COURT'S FILE DO NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE RELATIONS BETWEEN SZV AND ITS AGENTS INCLUDED THE CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE JUST BEEN MENTIONED, THAT IS TO SAY STIPULATIONS WHICH ENABLE THE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN THAT THE AGENTS HAVE IN RELATION TO THE APPLICANT A POSITION VERY SIMILAR TO THAT OF AN INDEPENDENT DEALER .
485 IN PARTICULAR THE COMMISSION HAS NOT DENIED THAT THE TRADE REPRESENTATIVES IN QUESTION WERE MAINLY CONCERNED WITH DISTRIBUTION FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPLICANT WITHOUT ACTING AT THE SAME TIME AS INDEPENDENT DEALERS TO ANY GREAT EXTENT .
486 2 . HOWEVER EVEN CLAUSES PROHIBITING COMPETITION IMPOSED BY AN UNDERTAKING OCCUPYING A DOMINANT POSITION ON TRADE REPRESENTATIVES MAY CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE, IF FOREIGN COMPETITORS FIND THAT THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT OPERATORS WHO CAN MARKET THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION ON A SUFFICIENTLY LARGE SCALE, AND ARE IN PRACTICE FORCED TO APPLY TO THE SAID UNDERTAKING'S TRADE REPRESENTATIVES IF THEY WISH TO SELL THIS PRODUCT IN THE LATTER'S SALES TERRITORY, OR IF THE SAID UNDERTAKING ENLARGES THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION OF COMPETITION TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT IT NO LONGER CORRESPONDS TO THE NATURE OF THE LEGAL AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP IN QUESTION .
487 WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST OF THESE EXCEPTIONS THE COMMISSION HAS NOT DENIED THAT THERE ARE TWO GROUPS OF ECONOMIC OPERATORS IN SOUTH GERMANY TRADING IN SUGAR, WHICH, SINCE THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION