FOR THE REASONS WHICH HAVE JUST BEEN MENTIONED - NEVER AT ANY TIME KEPT THEIR DISSATISFACTION TO THEMSELVES BUT TOLD RT ABOUT IT .
283 IF AN ECONOMIC OPERATOR ACCEPTS THE COMPLAINTS MADE TO HIM BY ANOTHER OPERATOR IN CONNEXION WITH THE COMPETITION TO WHICH THE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY THE FORMER OPERATOR EXPOSE THE LATTER, THE CONDUCT OF THE OPERATORS CONCERNED AMOUNTS TO A CONCERTED PRACTICE .
284 2 . PFEIFER UND LANGEN ASSERTS THAT 'ASSUMING THAT A DISCUSSION ON PRICES BETWEEN RT AND THE APPLICANT TOOK PLACE, THE EFFECT OF THIS DISCUSSION ... WAS MOST CERTAINLY NOT A REFUSAL BY RT TO SUPPLY THE GERMAN MARKET BUT THE OFFER TO RESERVE SUGAR FOR EXPORT TO GERMANY' AND THAT 'THE FACT THAT ON THIS OCCASION RT ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN THE SAME PRICE AS THE APPLICANT IS DUE TO ELEMENTARY COMMERCIAL COMMON SENSE' ( APPLICATION IN CASE 56/73, P . 36 ).
285 THE FACT THAT A VENDOR ALIGNS HIS PRICE ON THE HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED BY A COMPETITOR IS NOT NECESSARILY EVIDENCE OF A CONCERTED PRACTICE BUT MAY BE EXPLAINED BY AN ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM PROFIT . THE SITUATION IS DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE .
286 IN FACT IT APPEARS FROM ALL THE DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN QUOTED THAT RT'S CHIEF MOTIVE FOR THUS ALIGNING ITS PRICES - WHICH MOREOVER IS ACCEPTED BY ALL PARTIES - WAS TO AVOID ANNOYING PFEIFER UND LANGEN, ONE OF RT'S IMPORTANT CUSTOMERS FOR WHITE SUGAR, BY ADOPTING A COMMERCIAL POLICY LIKELY TO ENTICE SOME OF ITS CUSTOMERS FROM THE GERMAN COMPANY .
287 FINALLY, PFEIFER UND LANGEN'S STATEMENTS CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO CAN BE SAID TO CONFIRM THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ALIGNMENT OF PRICES IN QUESTION CREATED A CONCERTED PRACTICE .
288 IN FACT ALL THESE FACTORS SHOW, ON THE ONE HAND, THAT PFEIFER UND LANGEN DOES NOT SERIOUSLY DENY THAT IT COMMUNICATED ITS PRICES TO RT AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THIS INFORMATION WAS REQUESTED AND SUPPLIED FOR A COMMON PURPOSE DIRECTED AGAINST COMPETITION, WHICH IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF PRACTICAL COOPERATION WHICH THE PARTIES CONCERNED KNOWINGLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE RISKS OF COMPETITION .
289 3 . RT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE PRACTICES COMPLAINED OF '( WERE THE CONSEQUENCE OF ) MARKET CONDITIONS AND THEREFORE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CONTACT BETWEEN PRODUCERS' HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED IN CHAPTER 2 HEREOF .
290 4 . RT REFERS TO CERTAIN OF ITS DELIVERIES TO NON-PRODUCERS ESTABLISHED IN THE RHINELAND IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT IT NEVER SYSTEMATICALLY ADOPTED A POLICY DIRECTED AGAINST COMPETITION .
291 HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE ARE CONCERTED PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT COMPETITION HAS BEEN RESTRICTED AND IT IS UNNECESSARY TO PROVE THAT IT HAS BEEN PREVENTED .
292 FURTHERMORE, RT DID NOT SERIOUSLY DENY THAT THE VOLUME OF THESE FREE DELIVERIES WAS SMALL .
293 ALL THESE FACTORS SHOW THAT THE PRODUCERS