REVEALING TRADE SECRETS OF THE UNDERTAKINGS .
32 THE PRESENT SUBMISSION IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
THE SUBMISSION AS TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD
33 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 .
34 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 .
35 IN ORDER TO FULFIL THEIR FUNCTION, LIMITATION PERIODS MUST BE FIXED IN ADVANCE .
36 THE FIXING OF THEIR DURATION AND THE DETAILED RULES FOR THEIR APPLICATION COME WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE .
37 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 .
38 THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION IS UNFOUNDED .
SUBSTANTIVE SUBMISSIONS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF CONCERTED PRACTICES
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
39 THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF CONCERTED PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 85 ( 1 ) OF THE EEC TREATY IN RELATION TO ANY OF THE THREE INCREASES MENTIONED IN THE CONTESTED DECISION .
40 THAT DECISION STATES THAT PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE INCREASES 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 .
41 IT IS CONTENDED THAT THESE INCREASES CANNOT BE EXPLAINED SIMPLY BY THE OLIGOPOLISTIC CHARACTER OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE MARKET .
42 IT IS SAID TO BE UNREALISTIC TO SUPPOSE THAT WITHOUT PREVIOUS CONCERTATION THE PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS SUPPLYING THE COMMON MARKET COULD HAVE INCREASED THEIR PRICES ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BY IDENTICAL PERCENTAGES AT PRACTICALLY THE SAME MOMENT FOR ONE AND THE SAME IMPORTANT RANGE OF PRODUCTS INCLUDING SPECIALITY PRODUCTS FOR WHICH THERE ARE FEW, IF ANY, SUBSTITUTES, AND THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE SO IN A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES WHERE CONDITIONS ON THE DYESTUFFS MARKET ARE DIFFERENT .
43 THE COMMISSION HAS ARGUED BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE INTERESTED PARTIES NEED NOT NECESSARILY HAVE DRAWN UP A COMMON PLAN WITH A VIEW TO ADOPTING A CERTAIN COURSE OF BEHAVIOUR FOR IT TO BE SAID THAT THERE HAS BEEN CONCERTATION .
44 IT IS ARGUED THAT IT IS ENOUGH THAT THEY SHOULD PREVIOUSLY HAVE INFORMED EACH OTHER OF THE ATTITUDE WHICH THEY