.
39 IRREGULARITIES IN THE PROCEDURE FOR NOTIFICATION OF A DECISION ARE EXTRANEOUS TO THAT MEASURE AND CANNOT THEREFORE INVALIDATE IT .
40 IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH IRREGULARITIES MAY PREVENT THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH AN APPLICATION MUST BE LODGED FROM STARTING TO RUN .
41 THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT THE PERIOD FOR INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF INDIVIDUAL MEASURES OF THE COMMISSION STARTS TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION TO THE APPLICANT OR, IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, FROM THE DAY ON WHICH IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LATTER .
42 IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE TEXT OF THE DECISION AND THAT IT HAS EXERCISED ITS RIGHT TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD .
43 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE QUESTION OF POSSIBLE IRREGULARITIES CONCERNING NOTIFICATION CEASES TO BE RELEVANT .
44 THEREFORE THE ABOVEMENTIONED SUBMISSIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE FOR WANT OF RELEVANCE .
THE SUBMISSION AS TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD
45 THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS CONTRARY TO THE TREATY AND TO THE RULES RELATING TO ITS APPLICATION BECAUSE THE COMMISSION, IN COMMENCING ON 31 MAY 1967 PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE PRICE INCREASE OF JANUARY 1964, EXCEEDED ANY REASONABLE LIMITATION PERIOD .
46 THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE COMMISSION' S POWER TO IMPOSE FINES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE RULES ON COMPETITION DO NOT LAY DOWN ANY PERIOD OF LIMITATION .
47 IN ODER TO FULFIL THEIR FUNCTION, LIMITATION PERIODS MUST BE FIXED IN ADVANCE .
48 THE FIXING OF THEIR DURATION AND THE DETAILED RULES FOR THEIR APPLICATION COME WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE .
49 ALTHOUGH, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISIONS ON THIS MATTER, THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY HAS THE EFFECT OF PREVENTING THE COMMISSION FROM INDEFINITELY DELAYING THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO IMPOSE FINES, ITS CONDUCT IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS CONSTITUTING A BAR TO THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER AS REGARDS PARTICIPATION IN THE CONCERTED PRACTICES OF 1964 AND 1965 .
50 THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION IS UNFOUNDED .
SUBSTANTIVE SUBMISSION AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF CONCERTED PRACTICES
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
51 THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF CONCERTED PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE EEC TREATY IN RELATION TO ANY OF THE THREE INCREASES MENTIONED IN THE CONTESTED DECISION .
52 THAT DECISION STATES THAT PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE INCREASE OF 1964, 1965 AND 1967 TOOK PLACE AS THE RESULT OF CONCERTED ACTION IS TO BE FOUND IN THE FACTS THAT THE RATES INTRODUCED FOR EACH INCREASE BY THE DIFFERENT PRODUCERS IN EACH COUNTRY WERE THE SAME, THAT WITH VERY RARE EXCEPTIONS THE SAME DYESTUFFS WERE INVOLVED, AND THAT THE INCREASES WERE PUT INTO EFFECT OVER ONLY A VERY SHORT PERIOD, IF NOT ACTUALLY ON THE SAME DATE .
53 IT IS CONTENDED THAT THESE INCREASES CANNOT BE EXPLAINED