## Facts

- An association of marine-paint manufacturers previously obtained a competition-law exemption for restrictive agreement terms under then Article 85(3) EEC.
- The association applied to renew the exemption for ten years.
- The Commission issued a written statement of objections expressing concern about acquisitions of certain members by multinational firms and signaling that renewal would require notification of membership/ownership changes.
- A hearing was held where the acquisitions and their competitive implications were discussed.
- The Commission renewed the exemption but added a contested condition requiring immediate notification of (i) management links (common directors/managers) and (ii) financial relationships between any member and other marine-paint enterprises, including changes to existing links.
- The association sought annulment of the contested condition, arguing it had not been specifically raised as an objection and the association was not heard on the precise clause.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission’s obligation to communicate objections in writing and decide only on those objections extends to detailed conditions attached to an exemption decision.
2. Whether, as a matter of procedural fairness, parties whose interests are perceptibly affected must be given an opportunity to present views on exemption conditions.
3. What procedural limits apply to the Commission’s discretion to impose monitoring conditions when granting or renewing an Article 85(3) exemption.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the annulment action and upheld the contested notification condition.
- The duty under the relevant hearing rules to communicate objections was construed as primarily concerning reasons for applying Article 85(1), not as requiring advance specification of every exemption condition under Article 85(3).
- A general right to be heard applies where a public authority decision perceptibly affects interests, including in the setting of exemption conditions.
- On the facts, the association was not deprived of its rights of defense because the underlying concern—links between members and multinationals and related structural ties—was raised in the written objections and discussed at the hearing, making the condition a foreseeable outgrowth of the procedure.

## Legal Principles

- The Commission’s written “statement of objections” requirement principally addresses the grounds for finding a restriction of competition under Article 85(1), not an obligation to preannounce all detailed conditions later attached to an Article 85(3) exemption.
- Persons whose interests are perceptibly affected by a public authority decision must be given an opportunity to make their views known; this principle informs competition hearing procedures.
- The Commission has broad discretion to attach conditions to an Article 85(3) exemption to permit monitoring that the exemption’s prerequisites remain satisfied, but that discretion operates within procedural safeguards tied to effective participation by affected parties.
- A condition will not be annulled for lack of a specific prior formulation where it is a logical development of concerns adequately communicated and discussed during the administrative procedure.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the Commission’s renewal condition requiring disclosure of managerial and financial links, holding that while not every exemption condition must be pre-stated in the written objections, the affected undertaking must have a genuine opportunity to comment on the substantive concerns underlying such conditions, which occurred here.


Transocean Marine Paint Ass’n v. Comm’n of the Eur. Cmtys., Case 17/74, [1974] E.C.R. 1063 (Ct. J.)