DECISION ), WHICH ONLY REFERRED TO CONCRETE REINFORCING BARS .
7 INTRA-COMMUNITY ALIGNMENT CANNOT IN ANY CASE ENABLE GOODS TO BE SOLD BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICES SINCE ALL PRICE-LISTS OF COMMUNITY UNDERTAKINGS MUST COMPLY WITH THE DECISION ESTABLISHING THOSE MINIMUM PRICES . IT FOLLOWS THAT ANY SALE BY ALIGNMENT BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICES CONSTITUTES NOT ONLY AN IMPROPER INTRA-COMMUNITY ALIGNMENT , WHICH IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 60 OF THE TREATY , BUT ALSO AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE MINIMUM PRICES . THE FIRST SUBMISSION IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
8 SECONDLY , THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INFRINGEMENT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW , IN PARTICULAR OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION AND THAT OF THE PROHIBITION OR DISCRIMINATION . THE COMMISSION , IT CLAIMS , HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION BY ADOPTING TEMPORARILY A PERMISSIVE ATTITUDE TOWARDS OTHER UNDERTAKINGS GUILTY OF THE SAME ACTIONS AND PUTTING ASIDE THIS CONDUCT WITH REGARD TO LUCCHINI . THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE COMMISSION ALSO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IT IN RELATION TO THOSE UNDERTAKINGS , MORE PRECISELY , WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR SMALL QUANTITIES .
9 IT IS NECESSARY TO OBSERVE FIRST OF ALL THAT A CONCESSION ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES CANNOT MAKE AN INFRINGEMENT LEGITIMATE , STILL LESS JUSTIFY MAKING THAT INFRINGEMENT MORE SERIOUS . THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE SHOWN SOME LAXITY AS REGARDS ALIGNMENT NOT ON SPECIFIC PRICE-LISTS BUT ON A BASIC PRICE FORMED BY THE MINIMUM PRICE IN NO WAY JUSTIFIES SELLING AT PRICES LOWER THAN THE MINIMUM PRICES OR THE FAILURE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EXTRAS FOR QUALITY OR QUANTITY . MOREOVER , IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT PRODUCERS IN OTHER MEMBER STATES BENEFITED FROM A CONCESSION ENABLING THEM NOT TO CHARGE THE EXTRAS FOR QUALITY OR QUANTITY .
10 WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION , WHICH THE APPLICANT CLAIMS FOLLOWS FROM THE CONCESSION TO CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS IN RESPECT OF CONSIDERABLE UNDER-PRICING AS REGARDS EXTRAS FOR QUANTITY , IT IS NECESSARY TO STATE THAT SUCH DISCRIMINATION ONLY OCCURRED BEFORE THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE RULES THE INFRINGEMENT OF WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THE CONTESTED DECISION . THE SECOND SUBMISSION IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
11 THIRDLY , THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT IT ACTED OUT OF NECESSITY SO AS NOT TO LOSE TRADITIONAL MARKETS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE TO IT .
12 WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER THIS THREAT COULD HAVE GIVEN RISE TO A STATE OF NECESSITY JUSTIFYING ITS CONDUCT , IT IS SUFFICIENT TO STATE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT IT WAS IN DANGER OF BANKRUPTCY OR WINDING-UP , ESPECIALLY SINCE , AS THE APPLICANT ITSELF STATES , THE AMOUNT OF THE IMPROPER SALES RELATES ONLY TO A TINY PROPORTION OF ITS TURNOVER . THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
13 FOURTHLY , THE APPLICANT PLEADS THE INFRINGEMENT OF ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION DID NOT STATE SUFFICIENTLY THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED