PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 99/63 , TO AFFORD THEM THE OPPORTUNITY OF MAKING KNOWN THEIR VIEWS IN WRITING WITHIN SUCH TIME-LIMIT AS IT MAY FIX .
18 IT APPEARS FROM THE FILE THAT THE COMMISSION ' S CONDUCT IS CRITICIZED SOLELY IN SO FAR AS IT REFUSED TO INVITE THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASSOCIATIONS TO THE SECOND HEARING ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1976 IN RELATION TO THE FEDETAB RECOMMENDATION . ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE FILE THAT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS THOSE ASSOCIATIONS SENT THE COMMISSION THEIR WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS ON THE RECOMMENDATION . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT REFUSE TO HEAR THE SAID ASSOCIATIONS IN BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REGULATIONS SINCE , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 99/63 , THE COMMISSION AFFORDED THEM THE OPPORTUNITY OF MAKING KNOWN THEIR VIEWS IN WRITING AND THEY MADE USE OF THAT OPPORTUNITY .
19 THAT SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
SECOND SUBMISSION : COMMISSION ' S REFUSAL TO ACCEDE TO FEDETAB ' S REQUEST TO HEAR TWO ASSOCIATIONS OF WHOLESALERS
20 ON 30 JUNE 1976 FEDETAB SENT A LETTER TO THE COMMISSION ASKING IT TO SUMMON TO THE SECOND HEARING ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1976 TWO ASSOCIATIONS OF WHOLESALERS , NAMELY GT AND THE NATIONALE VERENIGING VAN FAMILIALE GROOTHANDELSONDERNEMINGEN ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' NVFG ' ' ). IT IS , HOWEVER , APPARENT FROM THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT LETTER THAT IT WAS INTENDED IN THE FIRST PLACE TO INFORM THE COMMISSION THAT FEDETAB HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE PRESENCE OF ANGIPMT AT THE HEARING ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1976 . NEVERTHELESS IN ORDER THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE FULL INFORMATION IT IS STATED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT FEDETAB WOULD LIKE THE NVFG AND GT ALSO TO BE SUMMONED . IT IS ALSO TO BE OBSERVED THAT THAT LETTER WAS SENT TO THE COMMISSION AFTER THE RECEIPT BY FEDETAB OF THE SECOND NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS IN RELATION TO THE RECOMMENDATION BUT BEFORE FEDETAB ' S ANSWER TO THE SAID NOTICE .
21 ON 20 JULY 1976 , AFTER RECEIPT BY THE COMMISSION OF FEDETAB ' S ANSWER TO THE SECOND NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS , THE COMMISSION ANSWERED THE LETTER OF 30 JUNE 1976 TO THE EFFECT THAT IT HAD DECIDED ULTIMATELY TO INVITE TO THE HEARING ONLY ' ' FEDETAB AND SUCH OF ITS MEMBERS AS HAVE MADE APPLICATION ' ' . IT JUSTIFIED THAT DECISION BY SAYING THAT IT SAW IN THE RECOMMENDATION AN ' ' AGREEMENT WHICH WAS AND REMAINS THE ACT ONLY OF THE MANUFACTURERS AND IN WHICH . . . THE WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS . . . PLAYED NO PART ' ' .
22 IN FEDETAB ' S VIEW THE LETTER OF 30 JUNE 1976 WAS AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 3 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 99/63 WHICH PROVIDES THAT UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS AGAINST WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED ' ' MAY . . . PROPOSE THAT THE COMMISSION HEAR PERSONS WHO MAY