No L 28/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 2.2.91 COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 16 January 1991 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/32.732 — I]Jsselcentrale and others) (Only the Dutch text is authentic) (91/50/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Having regard to the Treaty establishing 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 Article 3 thereof, Having regard to the application made to the Commis- sion on 26 May 1988 under Article 3 of Regulation No 17 by NV IGMO, of Meppel, Centraal Overijsselse Nutsbe- drijven NV, of Almelo, NV Regionaal Energiebedrijf Salland, of Deventer, and the Municipality of Hoogeveen, requesting it to find that NV Samenwerkende Elektrici- teitsproduktiebedrijven (SEP) and the electricity genera- tion companies in the Netherlands have infringed Article . 8s, Having given SEP and the electricity generators the opportunity of being heard on the matters to which the Commission has taken objection, in accordance with Article 19 (1). of Regulation No 17 in conjunction with Commission Regulation No 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Articles 19 (1) and (2) of Regulation No 17 (3, Having consulted the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, Whereas : I. THE FACTS 1. The complaint () On 26 May 1988 an application was made under Article 3 of Regulation No 17 by NV IGMO (Inter- communaal Gasbedrijf Meppel en Omstreken) of () OJ No 13, 21. 2. 1962, p. 204/62. () OJ No 127, 20. 8. 1963, p. 2268/63. Meppel ; the Hoogeveen municipal distribution undertaking (the two of these have since been merged into Rendo NV); NV Regionaal Energie- bedrijf Salland, of Deventer, and Centraal Overijs- selse Nutsbedrijven NV of Almelo. The complaint is against IJsselcentrale; it was made in the course of civil proceedings concerning the imposition by I]Jsselcentrale of an import and export ban coupled with an exclusive purchasing obligation, and the imposition of an extra cost equalization charge. 1. The complaint relates to three matters : The import ban explicitly laid down both in the 1971 General SEP Agreement (Article 2) and in the 1986 Cooperation Agreement (Article 21). - . The exclusive purchasing obligation deriving from the agreements between the complainants and IJsselcentrale, and particularly from Article 2 (2) of the General Terms and Conditions applying. According to the complainants this obligation to purchase, which in effect also prevents imports, is in its turn a consequence of the relevant provisions of the Cooperation Agreement. 3. IJsselcentrale’s power to determine prices unila- _ terally, and the equalization charge which in fact was unilaterally imposed on the complainants by I]Jjsselcentrale under a decision of its-Board (Raad wvan Commissarissen) taken on 26 October 1984. This equalization charge was imposed by I]Jsselcen- trale in order to eliminate differences between the costs of distribution to small and large consumers by, on the one hand, IJsselcentrale, and on the other hand municipal or regional distributors and '