ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AS A RESULT OF INTERNAL MEASURES, LEST THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM SHOULD BE IMPEDED AND THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE AIMS OF THE TREATY PLACED IN PERIL . CONSEQUENTLY, CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE RULES OF THE COMMUNITY AND NATIONAL RULES IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW ON CARTELS MUST BE RESOLVED BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE THAT COMMUNITY LAW TAKES PRECEDENCE .
7 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT SHOULD
7 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT SHOULD IT PROVE THAT A DECISION OF A NATIONAL AUTHORITY REGARDING AN AGREEMENT WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH A DECISION ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE CULMINATION OF THE PROCEDURE INITIATED BY IT, THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO TAKE PROPER ACCOUNT OF THE EFFECTS OF THE LATTER DECISION .
8 WHERE, DURING NATIONAL PROCEEDINGS, IT APPEARS POSSIBLE THAT THE DECISION TO BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION AT THE CULMINATION OF A PROCEDURE STILL IN PROGRESS CONCERNING THE SAME AGREEMENT MAY CONFLICT WITH THE EFFECTS OF THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES, IT IS FOR THE LATTER TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE MEASURES .
9 CONSEQUENTLY, AND SO LONG AS A REGULATION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 87(2)(E ) OF THE TREATY HAS NOT PROVIDED OTHERWISE, NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MAY TAKE ACTION AGAINST AN AGREEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR NATIONAL LAW, EVEN WHEN AN EXAMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH COMMUNITY LAW IS PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, SUBJECT HOWEVER TO THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL LAW MAY NOT PREJUDICE THE FULL AND UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW OR THE EFFECTS OF MEASURES TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT IT .
II - THE SECOND QUESTION
10 IN THE SECOND QUESTION THE KAMMERGERICHT ASKS WHETHER " THE RISK OF ITS RESULTING IN A DOUBLE SANCTION IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY WITH JURISDICTION IN CARTEL MATTERS ... " RENDERS IMPOSSIBLE THE ACCEPTANCE FOR ONE SET OF FACTS OF TWO PARALLEL PROCEDURES, THE ONE COMMUNITY AND THE OTHER NATIONAL .
11 THE POSSIBILITY OF CONCURRENT SANCTIONS NEED NOT MEAN THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF TWO PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS PURSUING DIFFERENT ENDS IS UNACCEPTABLE . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONDITIONS AND LIMITS INDICATED IN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION, THE ACCEPTABILITY OF A DUAL PROCEDURE OF THIS KIND FOLLOWS IN FACT FROM THE SPECIAL SYSTEM OF THE SHARING OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE MEMBER STATES WITH REGARD TO CARTELS . IF, HOWEVER, THE POSSIBILITY OF TWO PROCEDURES BEING CONDUCTED SEPARATELY WERE TO LEAD TO THE IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SANCTIONS, A GENERAL REQUIREMENT OF NATURAL JUSTICE, SUCH AS THAT EXPRESSED AT THE END OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE ECSC TREATY, DEMANDS THAT ANY PREVIOUS PUNITIVE DECISION MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING ANY SANCTION WHICH IS TO BE IMPOSED . IN ANY CASE, SO LONG AS NO REGULATION HAS BEEN ISSUED UNDER ARTICLE 87(2)(E ), NO MEANS OF AVOIDING SUCH A POSSIBILITY IS TO BE