No L 305/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 10. 92 COMMISSION DECISION of 7 October 1992 imposing a fine pursuant to Article 15 (1) of Council Reéulation No 17 on CSM NV (Case IV/33.791 — CSM — ex IV/33.638 — Sugar) (Only the Dutch text is authentic) (92/500/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 Articles 14 and 15 thereof, Having given the undertaking in question the opportunity to make known its views of the objections raised by the Commission, pursuant to Article 19 (1) 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, Whereas : I. THE FACTS " (1) By decision of 6 December 1990, adopted pursuant to Article 14 (3) of Regulation No 17, the Commis- sion ordered CSM NV (hereinafter referred to as CSM) to submit to an investigation. The decision was notified to CSM on 12 December 1990. In the body of the decision it was explained that the veri- fication was ordered because the Commission had been informed of allegations that NV Centrale Suiker Maastschappij had participated in arrange- ments or concerted practices with certain other Community producers concerning the marketing of sugar. The Commission officials charged with the investi- A gation began carrying it out immediately after the decision had been notified. This included examina- () OJ No 13, 21. 2. 1962, p. 204/62. () OJ No 127, 20. 8. 1963, p. 2268/63. tion of the 12 documents specified in Annex I(3). The Commission officials intended to take copies of those documents which related to the exchange of information between CSM and Suiker Unie concerning the purchasing of sugar beet, as well as the passing on of information eminating from Tiense Suikerraffinaderij NV which involved its purchase prices for sugar beet. However, CSM prevented them from doing so. It stated that it was not prepared to give copies of the documents in question because it could not reasonably be argued that the documents could prove any fact covered by the subject matter of the investigation, as specified in the written authorization presented by the abovementioned Commission officials. The Commission officials took minutes of the above. These were signed by CSM. Extracts from the documents allowing only their identification were annexed to the minutes. The investigation was continued on the following day, 13 December 1990. In the course of that day, CSM stated that it was now prepared to allow copies to be taken of four of the aboverhentioned 12 documents. It stated that it had been mistaken about the content of the four documents. The Commission officials took copies of them and confirmed this in writing (Annex II to this Deci- sion) (3. On 19 May 1991 the Commission decided to initiate a proceeding against CSM pursuant to Regulation No 17. On 13 June 1991 a decision was adopted pursuant to Article 16 (1) of Regulation No 17 imposing a periodic penalty payment on CSM and a statement of objections sent in the context of the abovementioned proceeding. On 14 June 1991, as a result of the Commission Decision imposing a periodic penalty payment, CSM declared its readiness, although protesting that it had no choice, to allow the Commission to make copies of the documents referred to in Annex I to the Decision and not included in Annex I (®) This Annex has not been published.