CERTAIN OF THE UNDERTAKINGS AND YET THE DECISION DOES NOT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY THEM .
20 THUS THE COMMISSION, IT IS SAID, HAS SUCCEEDED IN REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF .
21 FINALLY, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT PUT FORWARD EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT .
22 IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT UNDERTAKINGS SHOULD BE INFORMED OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF FACT ON WHICH THE OBJECTIONS ARE BASED .
23 IT APPEARS FROM THE TEXT OF THE NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS THAT THE FACTS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE APPLICANT WERE CLEARLY STATED THEREIN .
24 THAT NOTICE CONTAINS ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR DECIDING AS TO THE OBJECTIONS PUT FORWARD WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANT, IN PARTICULAR THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE INCREASES OF 1964, 1965 AND 1967 WERE ANNOUNCED AND IMPLEMENTED .
25 AMENDMENTS INCLUDED IN THE CONTESTED DECISION CONCERNING THE PRECISE COURSE OF THE FACTS, WHICH WERE MADE PURSUANT TO INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE INTERESTED PARTIES TO THE COMMISSION DURING THE COURSE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, CAN BY NO MEANS BE RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THIS COMPLAINT .
26 THE FACT THAT THE DECISION, WHICH WAS TAKEN IN RESPECT OF TEN SEPARATE UNDERTAKINGS, DEALT WITH THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY ONLY SOME OF THE ADDRESSEES, WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THEM, CANNOT IMPAIR THE LEGALITY OF THAT MEASURE .
27 FINALLY, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FACTORS PUT FORWARD BY THE COMMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF THE INFRINGEMENT AT ISSUE ARE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THAT INFRINGEMENT IS A MATTER RELATING TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONTESTED DECISION .
28 THESE COMPLAINTS ARE THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
THE SUBMISSION AS TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD
29 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 .
30 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 .
31 IN ORDER TO FULFIL THEIR FUNCTION, LIMITATION PERIODS MUST BE FIXED IN ADVANCE .
THE FIXING OF THEIR DURATION AND THE DETAILED RULES FOR THEIR APPLICATION COME WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE .
32 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 .
33 THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION IS UNFOUNDED .
SUBSTANTIVE SUBMISSIONS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF CONCERTED PRACTICES
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
34 THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS, FIRST, THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION ACCUSED IT OF