ITS ENTIRE TEXT IS ATTACHED TO THE FORM , THE INFORMATION GIVEN ON THAT FORM IS INTENDED SOLELY TO FACILITATE VERIFICATION . IF THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT , AND ABOVE ALL IF IT RELATES FAIRLY TO THE PROVISIONS WHICH AT THE TIME WERE CONSIDERED THE MOST IMPORTANT , THE OBJECTIVES OF THE NOTIFICATION SEEM TO BE ATTAINED . IN THAT CASE THE AGREEMENT MUST BE REGARDED AS PROPERLY NOTIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY , UNLESS THE INTENTION TO NOTIFY ONLY A PART OF THE AGREEMENT EMERGES CLEARLY FROM THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED .
11 IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION THAT AN AGREEMENT MAY BE REGARDED AS PROPERLY NOTIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND MAY THEREFORE BENEFIT FROM THE EFFECTS OF AN AGREEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN NOTIFIED , WHERE ITS ENTIRE TEXT HAS BEEN ATTACHED TO THE NOTIFICATION FORM , EVEN THOUGH ONLY SOME OF THE CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT ARE QUOTED ON THE FORM , PROVIDED THAT THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN THERE CONSTITUTES A FAIR AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROVISIONS WHICH AT THE TIME WERE CONSIDERED MOST IMPORTANT .
12 BY THE SECOND QUESTION THE JUDGE MAKING THE REFERENCE ASKS WHETHER A LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION REQUESTING FURTHER INFORMATION , WHILST STATING THAT THE AGREEMENT NOTIFIED WOULD BE EXAMINED IN ITS ENTIRETY , IS RELEVANT AS REGARDS THE EXTENT OF THE EFFECTS OF THE NOTIFICATION .
13 AS THE LETTER REFERRED TO MERELY CONSTITUTES A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER ARTICLE 11 OF REGULATION NO 17 , AND AS SUCH A LETTER CANNOT IN ANY EVENT - WHATEVER WORDING IS USED - ALTER THE EFFECTS OF THE NOTIFICATION , IT IS NECESSARY TO REPLY TO THAT QUESTION THAT A LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION REQUESTING , UNDER ARTICLE 11 OF REGULATION NO 17 FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT AN AGREEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN NOTIFIED DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE EFFECTS OF THE NOTIFICATION .
14 AS THE REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE , THE THIRD QUESTION , WHICH IS ASKED SOLELY IN THE EVENT OF THE REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION BEING NEGATIVE , HAS BECOME OTIOSE .
15 BY THE FOURTH QUESTION , THE JUDGE MAKING THE REFERENCE , ASSUMING THAT A PARTICULAR CATEGORY OF GOODS FELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AN AGREEMENT AT THE TIME OF ITS NOTIFICATION , ASKS WHETHER THE FACT THAT THE GOODS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF THAT AGREEMENT FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD CAN ERASE THE EFFECTS OF THE NOTIFICATION AS REGARDS THE CATEGORY IN QUESTION .
16 THE EFFECTS OF THE NOTIFICATION EXTEND TO THE SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT AT THE TIME OF ITS NOTIFICATION . TO RESTRICT THOSE EFFECTS IN THE CASE ENVISAGED BY THE QUESTION WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO PENALIZING THE PARTIES TO AN AGREEMENT FOR HAVING VOLUNTARILY LIMITED ITS SCOPE , WHICH WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF COMPETITION LAW . IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO REPLY TO THE FOURTH QUESTION THAT THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF A CATEGORY OF GOODS WHICH FELL WITHIN THE