THE PROHIBITION OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) FOR THE WHOLE OF THE PERIOD PRECEDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DECISION DECLARING ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) INAPPLICABLE TO ALL OF THE AGREEMENTS .
THE PRECEDING OBSERVATIONS APPLY ALSO IN THE CASE OF THE AGREEMENT OF 14 APRIL 1966 WITH JOHS . M . KLEIN AND CO . AN EXPORT BAN IMPOSED ON A FIRM ESTABLISHED IN A COUNTRY OUTSIDE THE EEC AND AIMED AGAINST DELIVERIES INTO THE EEC CAN CONSTITUTE A RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION CAPABLE OF AFFECTING TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES . HOWEVER , IN THE PRESENT CASE SUCH A BAN WAS NOT AN APPRECIABLE RESTRICTION BEFORE DENMARK JOINED THE EEC BECAUSE THE DIFFICULTIES OF IMPORTATION ARISING FROM CUSTOMS AND TAX REGULATIONS IN PRACTICE PREVENTED EXPORTS OF BITTER CAMPARI TO THE COMMUNITY . ACCORDINGLY , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25 OF REGULATION 17 , THE AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN CAMPARI-MILANO AND JOHS . M . KLEIN AND CO . AND DULY NOTIFIED ON 27 JUNE 1973 ALSO SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) OF THAT REGULATION .
3 . IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE AND INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION OF THE CAMPARI BRAND , OF THE RESTRICTIVE EFFECTS ON THE CIRCULATION OF BITTER CAMPARI BETWEEN MEMBER STATES RESULTING FROM EXISTING NATIONAL LEGISLATION , AND LASTLY THE FACT THAT EXPORTS BY MANUFACTURERS OF BITTER CAMPARI OR BY THEIR CUSTOMERS DEPEND ULTIMATELY ON THE WILLINGNESS OF THE MANUFACTURERS THEMSELVES , THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS IN GOOD TIME THE SITUATION RESULTING FROM THE AMENDED AGREEMENTS ON THE RELEVANT MARKET . CONSEQUENTLY , IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 8 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 , CAMPARI-MILANO AND EACH OF ITS LICENSEES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SEND TO THE COMMISSION ANNUALLY , BEGINNING ON 15 DECEMBER 1978 , A REPORT CONTAINING ALL INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENTS RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE AGREEMENTS , ESPECIALLY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF BITTER WITHIN THE EEC . THIS APPLIES IN PARTICULAR TO EXPORTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY .
ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD ALSO BE MADE TO ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSION IS INFORMED OF ANY AWARDS MADE UNDER THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE , AS THERE IS A RISK THAT THE AGREEMENTS MIGHT BE INTERPRETED WITHOUT REGARD FOR THIS DECISION , SO THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE TO AMEND IT . THERE IS A GREATER RISK AT ARBITRATION THAN IN THE ORDINARY COURTS THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT MAY GO BEYOND THE LIMITS IMPOSED BY THE EXEMPTION , PARTICULARLY WHERE THE ARBITRATORS , WHOSE FUNCTION , AS IN THIS CASE , IS TO PRODUCE AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT , ARE NOT BOUND BY THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW . FURTHERMORE , REVIEW OF ARBITRAL AWARDS FOR THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH ARTICLES 85 AND 86 , INASMUCH AS THESE FAIL TO BE REGARDED AS PART OF EEC PUBLIC POLICY IS NOT NECESSARILY AVAILABLE IN NON-MEMBER STATES ,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION :
ARTICLE 1
THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF