FOR 85 PER CENT OF BELGIAN PRODUCTION .
380 THIS FIGURE, WHICH IS IN ITSELF HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT, MUST BE EVALUATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEGLIGIBLE VOLUME OF SUGAR IMPORTS INTO BELGIUM .
381 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES RT WAS ABLE TO IMPEDE EFFECTIVE COMPETITION ON THE MARKET IN QUESTION .
382 CONSEQUENTLY DURING THE PERIOD WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IT OCCUPIED A DOMINANT POSITION ON THIS MARKET .
3 . THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS AN ABUSE OF THE DOMINANT POSITION
A - THE EVIDENCE
383 ( A ) IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT RT HAS IN FACT COMMITTED THE INFRINGEMENT FOR WHICH IT IS BLAMED THE COMMISSION RELIES FIRST OF ALL ON A SERIES OF DOCUMENTS WHICH IT PRODUCED AT THE SAME TIME TO PROVE THAT THERE WERE CONCERTED PRACTICES DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE NETHERLANDS OR THE WEST GERMAN MARKET AND WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ABOVE ( CHAPTERS 2 AND 3 ).
384 IN ADDITION THE COMMISSION REFERS TO FIFTEEN PURCHASE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN RT AND HOTTLET BETWEEN 8 OCTOBER 1968 AND 7 JANUARY 1972, TO A LETTER FROM RT TO HOTTLET OF 19 MARCH 1969 AND TO SEVERAL OF EXPORT'S INTERNAL MEMORANDA DRAWN UP BETWEEN FEBRUARY AND MAY 1970 ( ANNEXES I 41, 78, 131 TO THE STATEMENTS OF DEFENCE; ANNEX II 17, 18 TO THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE IN CASE 47/73; ANNEX 3 TO THE REJOINDER IN THE SAME CASE ).
385 THE FINDINGS IN CHAPTERS 2 AND 3 SHOW THAT RT SUCCEEDED IN MAKING DEALERS ABIDE BY ITS SALES POLICY WHICH WAS TO CHANNEL TO SPECIFIC CONSIGNEES OR DESTINATIONS THE EXPORTS OF WHITE SUGAR TO THE NETHERLANDS AND THE WESTERN PART OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY .
386 IN THE COMMISSION'S VIEW RT ALSO BROUGHT THE ECONOMIC PRESSURE REFERRED TO IN THE DECISION TO BEAR ON DEALERS TO PROCURE THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRACTICES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CONCERTED BETWEEN THE BELGIAN COMPANY AND CERTAIN FRENCH PRODUCERS RELATING TO THE INVITATIONS TO TENDER FOR REFUNDS ON EXPORTS TO THIRD COUNTRIES WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT DEALT WITH IN CHAPTER 9 .
387 ( B ) IT EMERGES FROM LETTERS BETWEEN RT AND HOTTLET EXCHANGED BETWEEN 20 OCTOBER 1968 AND 16 DECEMBER 1969 ( ANNEX 3 TO THE REJOINDER IN CASE 47/73 ) THAT :
- HOTTLET PURCHASED A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF SUGAR FROM RT AND RESOLD IT TO A GERMAN CUSTOMER AND IT WAS A TERM OF THE RESPECTIVE PURCHASE CONTRACT AND CONTRACT FOR RESALE INSERTED AT RT'S REQUEST THAT THE SUGAR SHOULD ONLY BE USED FOR DENATURING;
- SUBSEQUENTLY HOTTLET ASKED RT TO RELEASE THE SAID CUSTOMER AND ITSELF FROM THIS OBLIGATION WHICH COULD NO LONGER BE COMPLIED WITH BECAUSE THE DENATURING PREMIUM HAD BEEN ABOLISHED;
RT NEVERTHELESS INSISTED ON ABSOLUTE PERFORMANCE OF THE CLAUSE IN QUESTION AND IN THE END REQUIRED HOTTLET TO PAY BFRS 1 250 000 BY WAY OF DAMAGES, BECAUSE HOTTLET, AS A RESULT OF THE EVENTS WHICH HAVE JUST BEEN DESCRIBED, DID NOT TAKE DELIVERY