TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE COURT THE COMMISSION ADMITTED THAT 'IN THE FRENCH VERSION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION SENT TO RT', IT POINTED OUT THAT THE INFRINGEMENT IN QUESTION ONLY COMMENCED IN 1969/70 .
229 THE COMMISSION ASSERTS THAT THIS WAS DUE TO A MISTAKE, WHEREAS RT STATES THAT IT ABIDES BY THE TEXT OF THE DECISION OF WHICH IT WAS NOTIFIED .
230 ON THE ONE HAND THE NOTIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS INDICATED WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY THAT THE COMMISSION INTENDED TO FIND THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ENGAGED IN A CONCERTED PRACTICE HAVING AS ITS OBJECT THE PROTECTION OF THE WESTERN PART OF GERMANY, WHICH BEGAN DURING THE 1968/69 MARKETING YEAR .
231 ON THE OTHER HAND THE PLEADINGS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT DURING THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE AND IN PARTICULAR PAGES 4 AND 12 OF AND ANNEX 5 TO THE REPLY SHOW THAT THIS IS ALSO THE INTERPRETATION WHICH THE APPLICANT PLACED ON THE CONTESTED DECISION .
232 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR ASSUMING THAT THE DECISION FOUND THAT THERE WAS A CONCERTED PRACTICE WHICH HAD AS ITS OBJECT THE PROTECTION OF THE MARKET OF THE WESTERN PART OF GERMANY AND WAS ENGAGED IN FROM THE 1968/69 MARKETING YEAR ONWARDS .
SECTION 1 : PROCEDURAL AND FORMAL SUBMISSIONS; SUBMISSION ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE THAT REGULATION NO 26 OF THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN INFRINGED
I - SUBMISSIONS ALREADY DEALT WITH IN THE SECOND CHAPTER
233 RT'S SUBMISSIONS THAT THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE CONTESTED DECISION LACKED CLARITY AND THAT REGULATION NO 26 HAD BEEN INFRINGED, WHICH WERE ALSO MADE IN CONNEXION WITH THE SECOND COMPLAINT, MUST BE DISMISSED FOR THE REASONS GIVEN DURING THE EARLIER EXAMINATION OF THIS COMPLAINT .
234 SIMILARLY REFERENCE MUST BE MADE TO THE EARLIER ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PFEIFER UND LANGEN'S SUBMISSIONS THAT THE PRINCIPLE THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL HAS BEEN INFRINGED AND THAT THE TIME-LIMITS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF OBSERVATIONS WERE UNDULY SHORT .
II - INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO DEFEND
235 PFEIFER UND LANGEN SUBMITS THAT THE REASONS FOR CERTAIN STATEMENTS IN THE NOTIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS ARE EITHER NOT GIVEN OR THE STATEMENTS THEMSELVES ARE INACCURATE .
236 THE EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS OR HAS NOT PROVED THE INFRINGEMENT ALLEGED IS PART OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
III - INFRINGEMENT OF THE ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES FOR THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE
237 PFEIFER UND LANGEN COMPLAIN THAT THE COMMISSION BASED THE COMPLAINT MADE AGAINST IT UPON FACTS WHICH CANNOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A CONCERTED PRACTICE BUT WHICH CAN BE EXPLAINED BY REASONS IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH ANY CONCERTED ACTION .
238 FURTHER THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE PERMITTED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING AN INFRINGEMENT, TO RELY ON STATEMENTS OF PERSONS WHO ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE EVIDENCE AS TO THE FACTS WHICH THEY ALLEGE BUT CAN AT BEST EXPRESS AN OPINION ON EVENTS IN WHICH THEY HAVE NOT