HAVING PARTICIPATED, OUTSIDE THE ITALIAN MARKET, IN 1965 AND IN 1967, IN CONCERTED PRACTICES RELATING TO PRICE INCREASES IN OTHER MEMBER STATES .
35 IT IS ARGUED THAT IN VIEW OF ACNA' S REFUSAL TO INCREASE ITS PRICES ON ITS NATIONAL MARKET AND THE SMALL COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE TO IT OF THOSE OTHER MARKETS, THE ABOVEMENTIONED ALLEGATION IS NOT PLAUSIBLE .
36 DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT, THE DEFENDANT REPLIED THAT IN THE APPLICANT' S CASE THE CONTESTED DECISION WAS BASED ON ITS PARTICIPATION IN THE INCREASE OF 1964 ALONE, AND THAT ITS CONDUCT IN 1965 AND 1967, VIEWED IN ISOLATION, WAS NOT OF A NATURE SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THAT MEASURE .
37 THEREFORE, IN THE EXAMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INFRINGEMENT ALLEGED AGAINST THE APPLICANT THAT LIMITATION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT .
38 THE APPLICANT ALSO COMPLAINS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT PRODUCED VALID EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT PARTICIPATED IN CONCERTED PRACTICES CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE EEC TREATY .
39 THE CONTESTED DECISION STATES THAT PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE INCREASE OF 1964 TOOK PLACE AS THE RESULT OF CONCERTED ACTION IS TO BE FOUND IN THE FACTS THAT THE RATES INTRODUCED FOR THAT 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 .
40 IT IS CONTENDED THAT THAT INCREASE CANNOT BE EXPLAINED SIMPLY BY THE OLIGOPOLISTIC CHARACTER OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE MARKET .
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 .
41 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 .
IT IS ARGUED THAT IT IS ENOUGH THAT THEY SHOULD PREVIOUSLY HAVE INFORMED EACH OTHER OF THE ATTITUDE WHICH THEY INTEND TO ADOPT SO THAT EACH COULD REGULATE HIS CONDUCT SAFE IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT HIS COMPETITORS WOULD ACT IN THE SAME WAY .
42 THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS BASED ON AN INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF THE MARKET IN THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION AND ON AN ERRONEOUS UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT OF A CONCERTED PRACTICE, WHICH IS WRONGLY IDENTIFIED BY THE DECISION WITH THE CONSCIOUS PARALLELISM OF MEMBERS OF AN OLIGOPOLY, WHEREAS SUCH CONDUCT IS DUE TO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS ADOPTED BY EACH UNDERTAKING, DETERMINED BY OBJECTIVE BUSINESS NEEDS,