23. 11. 88 . Official Journal of the European Communities No L 316/43 . (Acts whose publication is not obligatory) COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 28 October 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ~ (IV/B-2/31.424, Hudson’s Bay-Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening) (Only the Danish text is authentic) (88/587/BEEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Havmg regard to the Treaty estabhshmg the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (') as last amended by the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Articles 3 (1) and 15 (2). thereof, Having regard to the application for a finding of an infringement submitted on # January 1985 pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 17, by Hudson’s Bay and Annings Ltd, London, UK (hereinafter ‘HBA’), Having regard to the notification and application for ‘negative clearance submitted to the Commission by Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening (Danish Fur Breeders’ Association — hereinafter DPF) of Glostrup, Denmark, on 27 August 1985, concerning the following agrements and decisions : (@) Love for Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening — the Regulations of the Danish Fur Breeders Association ; (b) Regler for avlernes kapitalfond — the Rules of the Capital Fund; (c) Regler for katastrofehjelpsordningen — the Rules regarding the Emergency Assistance Scheme, Having regard to the Commission Decision of 30 March 1987 to initiate proceedings in this case, () OJ No 13, 21. 2. 1962, p. 204/62. . Having given the wundertakings and association of undertakings concerned the opportunity to make known their views on the objections raised by the Commission, pursuant to Article 19 (1) and (2) of Regulation No 17 and Commission Regulation No 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19 (1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17 (3, After consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, I. THE FACTS 1) - Complaint and notification On 4 January 1985 and subsequently, HBA formally complained to the Commission which was requested to make findings of infringement of Article 85 (1) and Article 86 in respect of the following agreements and/or practices : (a) Section 4, part 1 (f) of the DPF Regulations (as set out in paragraph 3 (a) below) which obliges members not to organize or support sales by competitors of DPF and which was invoked to threaten expulsion of three DPF members because they acted as agents for HBA. Two of these were in fact expelled from the DPF; () OJ No 127, 20. 8. 1963, p. 2268/63.