WERE ADOPTED' AND WHICH IS ABSENT 'IF THESE PRACTICES ARE THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF MARKET CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CONTACTS BETWEEN PRODUCERS '.
179 THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ARE SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT SU AND CSM INTENDED TO WARD OFF THE RISK OF COMPETITION FROM RT, TO WHICH THEY COULD BY NO MEANS BE CERTAIN THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE EXPOSED, IF THERE WAS NO CONCERTED ACTION, HAVING REGARD TO THE CONSIDERABLE OVER-PRODUCTION OF BELGIAN SUGAR, THE SHORT-FALL OF NETHERLANDS PRODUCTION, THE FACT THAT BELGIAN PRICES WERE BELOW NETHERLANDS PRICES, THAT BELGIAN DEALERS WANTED TO EXPORT LARGE AMOUNTS FREELY AND ALSO BEARING IN MIND THE OPPORTUNITY WHICH ALL THESE FACTORS OFFERED RT OF AT LEAST SUPPLYING THE FRONTIER REGIONS OF THE NETHERLANDS .
180 THEREFORE THE CONCERTED ACTION IN QUESTION AND THE PRACTICES WHEREBY IT WAS IMPLEMENTED WERE LIKELY TO REMOVE ANY DOUBTS THE NETHERLANDS PRODUCERS HAD AS TO THEIR CHANCES OF MAINTAINING - TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE EFFECTIVE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF THE PRODUCTS IN THE COMMON MARKET AND OF THE FREEDOM ENJOYED BY CONSUMERS TO CHOOSE THEIR SUPPLIERS - THE POSITION WHICH THEY HAD ESTABLISHED .
181 3 . THE APPLICANTS' SUBMISSION THAT ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY DOES NOT PROHIBIT DELIVERIES FROM PRODUCER TO PRODUCER .
182 THIS SUBMISSION IS IRRELEVANT, SINCE THE COMMISSION DOES NOT MAINTAIN THAT SUCH DELIVERIES ARE ILLEGAL PER SE BUT INFERS THAT THESE OPERATIONS ARE ILLEGAL FROM THE FACT THAT THESE DELIVERIES WERE A CONSTITUENT ELEMENT OF THE CONCERTED ACTION .
183 FURTHER, CONTRARY TO THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY SU, IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE LATTER, AS IT HAS STATED, PURCHASED MOST OF ITS SUGAR FROM RT NOT DIRECTLY BUT THROUGH INTERMEDIATE TRADERS .
184 IN FACT THE DETERMINING FACTOR IS THAT RT, WHICH CERTAINLY DID NOT GIVE MIDDLEMEN THE RIGHT TO SELECT THE CONSIGNEE, INTENDED TO AND IN FACT DID SUPPLY SU, EVEN THOUGH IT MADE EXPORT AND HOTTLET A PARTY TO THESE TRANSACTIONS .
185 THE DOCUMENTS QUOTED SHOW THAT RT FORCED BELGIAN DEALERS TO ADOPT ITS POLICY OF CHANNELLING BELGIAN EXPORTS TO THE NETHERLANDS, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE PARTICIPATION OF THESE DEALERS IN ALL OR PART OF THE CONTESTED DELIVERIES CANNOT MODIFY THEIR EVALUATION .
186 4 . SU AND CSM SUBMIT THAT THEY WERE NEVER ASKED TO APPROVE THE DESTINATION OF BELGIAN SUGAR TO BE EXPORTED TO THE NETHERLANDS .
187 THIS ARGUMENT, AS IS SHOWN BY THE DOCUMENTS QUOTED, DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT RT AND THE NETHERLANDS PRODUCERS AGREED ON THE BASIC CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED IN CONCERT WHEN SELECTING THE CONSIGNEES OR DESTINATIONS OF BELGIAN DELIVERIES TO THE NETHERLANDS AND IN FACT ADOPTED THEM .
188 5 . THE ARGUMENT OF SU AND OF CSM THAT NOT INCONSIDERABLE QUANTITIES OF BELGIAN SUGAR WERE IMPORTED INTO THE NETHERLANDS OUTSIDE THE SUPPLY SYSTEM WHICH IS CRITICIZED, SUCH AS SUPPLIES NEGOTIATED BY A GERMAN FIRM AND COMING FROM THE PRODUCTION OF BELGIAN MANUFACTURERS OTHER THAN RT, CANNOT EITHER BE TAKEN