## Facts

- Belgian water-utility practice required washing machines and dishwashers connected to the water supply to meet technical and health standards.
- A Belgian water-supply trade association (ANSEAU) and major manufacturers/sole importers concluded a 1978 agreement creating an ANSEAU–NAVEWA conformity label for those appliances.
- The participating undertakings accounted for a very large share of the Belgian market, and appliances without the label were effectively excluded because water undertakings would not connect them.
- Parallel importers were not parties to the scheme and, in practice, lacked access to the label, making parallel imports into Belgium significantly harder.
- The European Commission found the agreement and its implementation infringed Article 85(1) EEC (now Article 101(1) TFEU), rejected an exemption request under Article 85(3), and imposed fines on the participating undertakings and ANSEAU.
- The applicants sought annulment of the Commission decision under Article 173 EEC (now Article 263 TFEU), challenging both liability and fines and raising procedural objections.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged defects in the Commission’s preliminary administrative procedure affected the validity of the infringement decision.
2. Whether public disclosure of the decision before formal notification to addressees invalidated the decision.
3. Whether a labeling scheme adopted by an association of undertakings, including recommendations, can fall within Article 85(1) EEC.
4. Whether the agreement was capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States, including by hindering parallel imports.
5. Whether the Commission satisfied the duty to state reasons for the infringement finding and fines.
6. For fines under Regulation 17, Article 15(2): what constitutes “intentional” infringement; what factors may be used to assess gravity and set amounts; whether an aggregate maximum fine may be fixed before allocation; and whether inability to pay must be considered.

## Decision

- The Court dismissed the actions and upheld the Commission decision in all essential respects.
- The preliminary administrative procedure was preparatory to the final decision; its compliance-opportunity aspect did not change its legal character.
- Premature publicity, while improper, did not invalidate a decision already adopted.
- Article 85(1) applied to associations of undertakings where their actions, or those of members, are calculated to produce anti-competitive results; association recommendations can be caught when they coordinate member conduct.
- The labeling scheme was capable of restricting parallel imports and affecting inter-State trade; it therefore could not be treated as unrelated to imports/exports for exemption/notification purposes.
- The Commission’s reasoning was adequate because it identified the essential factual and legal grounds for the infringement and the penalties.
- The Court upheld the fines, including the Commission’s approach to intention, gravity, aggregate ceiling, and refusal to treat adverse financial position as mandatory.

## Legal Principles

- The Commission’s preliminary administrative procedure under the competition rules is preparatory to a final infringement decision; procedural steps aimed at compliance do not convert it into a settlement process.
- Acts occurring after a decision’s adoption (including premature publication) do not, by themselves, affect the decision’s validity.
- Article 85(1) EEC reaches decisions and recommendations of associations of undertakings when, in their legal and economic context, they tend to coordinate conduct and restrict competition or affect trade between Member States.
- A technical standard or conformity-label scheme may infringe Article 85(1) when it structures market access in a way that hinders independent operators and parallel trade.
- A measure may be treated as restrictive by object when its nature and context show a sufficient potential to restrict competition and inter-State trade, including by impeding parallel imports.
- The duty to state reasons is met when the decision sets out the essential matters of fact and law and the considerations leading to its adoption; exhaustive rebuttal of all arguments is not required.
- For fines, an infringement is “intentional” if the undertaking knew the agreement’s purpose was restrictive and that it was capable of affecting inter-State trade; knowledge of illegality is not required.
- Fine gravity may consider multiple factors, including the volume/value of affected goods and the size and economic power of the undertaking and its market influence.
- In multi-party infringements, the Commission may set an aggregate maximum fine reflecting the seriousness of the danger and then allocate individual fines.
- The Commission is not required to reduce fines solely due to an undertaking’s adverse financial situation.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the Commission’s finding that the ANSEAU–NAVEWA conformity-label arrangement restricted competition by impeding parallel imports and affecting inter-State trade, and it confirmed key standards on association conduct under Article 85(1), the sufficiency of administrative reasoning, and the assessment of intention and amount in competition-law fines.


NV IAZ Int’l Belg. & Others v. Comm’n, Joined Cases 96–102, 104, 105, 108 & 110/82, 1983 E.C.R. 3369 (C.J.E.C. 1983)