HIS PRICES, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IN SO DOING THE PRESENT OR FORESEEABLE CONDUCT OF HIS COMPETITORS, NEVERTHELESS IT IS CONTRARY TO THE RULES ON COMPETITION CONTAINED IN THE TREATY FOR A PRODUCER TO COOPERATE WITH HIS COMPETITORS, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE A COORDINATED COURSE OF ACTION RELATING TO A PRICE INCREASE AND TO ENSURE ITS SUCCESS BY PRIOR ELIMINATION OF ALL UNCERTAINTY AS TO EACH OTHER' S CONDUCT REGARDING THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THAT ACTION, SUCH AS THE AMOUNT, SUBJECT-MATTER, DATE AND PLACE OF THE INCREASES .
119 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NATURE OF THE MARKET IN THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION, THE CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER UNDERTAKINGS AGAINST WHICH PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, WAS DESIGNED TO REPLACE THE RISKS OF COMPETITION AND THE HAZARDS OF COMPETITORS' SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS BY COOPERATION CONSTITUTING A CONCERTED PRACTICE PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE TREATY .
THE EFFECT OF THE CONCERTED PRACTICE ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES
120 THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE UNIFORM PRICE INCREASES WERE NOT CAPABLE OF AFFECTING TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES BECAUSE NOTWITHSTANDING THE NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCES EXISTING BETWEEN PRICES CHARGED IN THE DIFFERENT STATES CONSUMERS HAVE ALWAYS PREFERRED TO MAKE THEIR PURCHASES OF DYESTUFFS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY .
121 HOWEVER, IT APPEARS FROM WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID THAT THE CONCERTED PRACTICES, BY SEEKING TO KEEP THE MARKET IN A FRAGMENTED STATE, WERE LIABLE TO AFFECT THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH TRADE IN THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION TAKES PLACE BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES .
122 THE PARTIES WHO PUT THESE PRACTICES INTO EFFECT SOUGHT, ON THE OCCASION OF EACH PRICE INCREASE, TO REDUCE TO A MINIMUM THE RISKS OF CHANGING THE CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION .
123 THE FACT THAT THE INCREASES WERE UNIFORM AND SIMULTANEOUS HAS IN PARTICULAR SERVED TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, ENSURING THAT THE UNDERTAKINGS WOULD NOT LOSE CUSTOM, AND HAS THUS HELPED TO KEEP THE TRADITIONAL NATIONAL MARKETS IN THOSE GOODS " CEMENTED " TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANY REAL FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION IN THE COMMON MARKET .
124 THEREFORE THIS SUBMISSION IS UNFOUNDED .
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION
125 THE APPLICANT, WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY, ARGUES THAT THE COMMISSION IS NOT EMPOWERED TO IMPOSE FINES ON IT BY REASON MERELY OF THE EFFECTS PRODUCED IN THE COMMON MARKET BY ACTIONS WHICH IT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY .
126 SINCE A CONCERTED PRACTICE IS INVOLVED, IT IS FIRST NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT HAS HAD EFFECTS WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET .
127 IT APPEARS FROM WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID THAT THE INCREASES AT ISSUE WERE PUT INTO EFFECT WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET AND CONCERNED COMPETITION BETWEEN PRODUCERS OPERATING WITHIN IT .
128 THEREFORE THE ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE FINE AT ISSUE HAS BEEN IMPOSED CONSTITUTE PRACTICES CARRIED ON DIRECTLY WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET .
129 IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN