EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSION , IN NOT HEARING MR VAN VLIERDEN , UNDULY RESTRICTED THE INQUIRY INTO THE MATTER AND THUS LIMITED THE APPLICANTS ' OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EXPLANATIONS OF THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION ' S OBJECTIONS . THIS SUBMISSION ALSO MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
19 FOURTHLY THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS WAS INCOMPLETE AND THAT CERTAIN OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED WERE INADEQUATELY OR INACCURATELY EXPLAINED . IT TAKES THE VIEW THAT IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSION HAS INFRINGED ARTICLE 4 OF REGULATION NO 99/63 UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY IN ITS DECISIONS DEAL ONLY WITH THOSE OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST THE PARTIES CONCERNED IN RESPECT OF WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY OF MAKING KNOWN THEIR VIEWS . THE APPLICANT DOES NOT GIVE ANY MORE DETAILED INDICATIONS AS TO THE PARTS OF THE DECISION TO WHICH THIS CRITICISM RELATES .
20 IT MAY BE SEEN FROM A COMPARISON OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS AND THE CONTESTED DECISION THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS THE COMMISSION EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO THE THREE MATTERS FINALLY ESTABLISHED IN MAKING ITS DECLARATION THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) AND IN ITS REFUSAL TO GRANT AN EXEMPTION UNDER ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ), NAMELY : THE SYSTEM OF RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE , THE EXCLUSIVE DEALING SYSTEM AND THE PENALTY SYSTEM . THE PARTIES WERE THEREFORE FULLY INFORMED OF THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY INITIATED AGAINST THEM AND WERE IN A POSITION TO DEFEND THEMSELVES . THIS SUBMISSION ALSO MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
21 FIFTHLY THE FLEMISH ASSOCIATION COMPLAINS THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT REPLY TO CERTAIN OF ITS ARGUMENTS AND CLAIMS THAT ACCORDINGLY THE DECISION AT ISSUE SHOULD BE DECLARED VOID ON THE GROUND OF AN INADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH IT IS BASED . IN THIS RESPECT IT MENTIONS THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION ATTACHED NO IMPORTANCE TO ITS ARGUMENTS OF A CULTURAL NATURE OR TO THOSE RELATING TO ARTICLE 10 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND TO ARTICLE 10 BIS OF THE PARIS CONVENTION .
22 IN THIS CONNECTION IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT ALTHOUGH , UNDER ARTICLE 190 OF THE TREATY , THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO STATE THE FACTUAL MATTERS JUSTIFYING THE ADOPTION OF A DECISION , TOGETHER WITH THE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE LED TO ITS ADOPTING IT , THE ARTICLE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS ALL THE MATTERS OF FACT AND OF LAW WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ( SEE , MOST RECENTLY ON THAT SUBJECT , THE JUDGMENT OF 9 NOVEMBER 1983 , CASE 322/81 MICHELIN ( 1983 ) ECR 3461 . THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH A DECISION ADVERSELY AFFECTING A PERSON IS BASED MUST ALLOW THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OF REVIEW AS TO THE LEGALITY OF THE DECISION AND MUST PROVIDE THE PERSON CONCERNED WITH THE INFORMATION