C-277/87

OPINION OF MR VAN GERVEN — CASE C-277/87

ECR 3125), without its being necessary In the same way, the fact that a supplier for it to constitute a valid and binding may not have taken steps to ensure the contract under national law. observance by his customers of a contractual clause intended to restrict 3. For the purpose of the application of competition is not sufficient to remove Article 85(1) there is no need to take that clause from the prohibition of account of the concrete effects of an Article 85(1) of the Treaty (see judgment agreement when it has as its object the of 21 February 1984 in Case 86/82 prevention, restriction or distortion of Hasselblad v Commission [1984] ECR competition within the common market 883). (see judgment of 13 July 1966 in Joined Cases 56 and 58/64 Consten and Grundig 4. In determining the amount of fines to be v Commission [1966] ECR 299). In such imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of a case the absence in the Commission's Regulation No 17, it is necessary to take decision of any analysis of the effects of account of all matters relevant to an the agreement from the point of view of assessment of the seriousness of the competition does not constitute a defect infringement, as well as the conduct of capable of justifying a declaration that it the undertaking during the course of the is void. administrative proceeding.

OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion on 10 October 1989.* He proposed that the Court should dismiss the action in its entirety and order the applicant to pay the costs.