IT CANNOT BE UPHELD .
3 . LACK OF CLARITY IN THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION
121 SU, CSM AND RT SUBMIT RESPECTIVELY THAT THE COMMISSION HAS INFRINGED AN ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT, THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY OR REGULATION NO 17 ( 3 ) IN THAT, EITHER SUBPARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF THE DECISION DOES NOT ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE COURSES OF CONDUCT WHICH CONSTITUTE THE INFRINGEMENT AND WHICH THE APPLICANTS ARE CALLED UPON TO PUT AN END TO UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE DECISION, OR THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN FROM THIS LATTER PROVISION, EVEN IF IT IS CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT OF REASONS UPON WHICH THE DECISION IS BASED, WHETHER SALES FROM PRODUCER TO PRODUCER, OWING TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TREATED AS BEING UNLAWFUL PER SE, MUST BE DISCONTINUED .
122 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THIS SUBMISSION IT IS ADVISABLE TO REFER NOT ONLY TO THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION WHICH IS OF NECESSITY CONCISE BUT ALSO TO THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS UPON WHICH THE DECISION IS BASED .
123 IF THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION, WHICH IS CRITICIZED, IS CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT OF REASONS, IT SHOWS WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY CONDUCT FOR WHICH THE APPLICANTS ARE BLAMED AND WHICH THEY MUST PUT AN END TO PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 2 OF THE DECISION .
124 SO FAR IN PARTICULAR AS THE DELIVERIES FROM PRODUCER TO PRODUCER ARE CONCERNED, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED THAT THEY WERE NOT REGARDED AS BEING PROHIBITED AS SUCH, BUT THAT THE COMMISSION INFERRED THEIR ILLEGALITY FROM THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CONSTITUENT PARTS OF CONCERTED PRACTICES .
125 THIS SUBMISSION MUST BE REJECTED .
SECTION 3 : SUBMISSIONS ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
I - INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY
126 THE ESSENCE OF THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORWARD BY SU, CSM, RT AND PFEIFER UND LANGEN IS THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONCERTED ACTION, THE COURSES OF CONDUCT FOR WHICH THE APPLICANTS ARE BLAMED DO NOT AMOUNT TO CONCERTED PRACTICES, SO THAT BY APPLYING ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY TO THESE COURSES OF CONDUCT THE COMMISSION WAS IN BREACH OF THIS PROVISION .
1 . SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT STATEMENT IN THE DECISION
127 THE PRACTICES, FOR WHICH THE APPLICANTS OR SOME OF THEM ARE BLAMED, CAN BE SUBDIVIDED INTO THREE GROUPS OF ACTIONS OR OMISSIONS .
128 THE FIRST COMPLAINT MADE AGAINST THEM IS THAT THEY CHANNELLED VERY NEARLY ALL EXPORTS IN THE NETHERLANDS TO SPECIFIC CONSIGNEES OR DESTINATIONS, NAMELY NETHERLANDS PRODUCERS, CERTAIN INDUSTRIES, WHICH THESE PRODUCERS HAD PERMITTED THEM TO SUPPLY, AND FOR DENATURING OR EXPORT AT A LATER DATE TO THIRD COUNTRIES .
129 FURTHER THEY ARE BLAMED FOR HAVING REFUSED TO SUPPLY OPERATORS WISHING TO IMPORT SUGAR INTO A NEIGHBOURING MEMBER STATE .
130 FINALLY THE COMMISSION MADE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST RT, ON THE ONE HAND, AND SU AND CSM ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THEY RESPECTIVELY COMPELLED