COMMISSION HAD NO JURISDICTION TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IT .
THERE, IT IS SAID, IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT IN ANY EVENT THE APPLICANT COMMITTED A PARDONABLE ERROR, AND THAT ANY INFRINGEMENTS OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE TREATY ARE NOT IMPUTABLE TO AN OFFENCE ON ITS PART .
51 IT APPEARS FROM THE EXAMINATION OF THE SUBMISSION CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THAT JURISDICTION IS BASED NOT ONLY ON THE EFFECTS ARISING FROM A COURSE OF CONDUCT PURSUED OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO ON AN ACTIVITY PURSUED WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET AND IMPUTABLE TO THE APPLICANT .
52 THEREFORE THIS SUBMISSION IS UNFOUNDED .
THE FINE
53 IN VIEW OF THE FREQUENCY AND EXTENT OF THE APPLICANT' S PARTICIPATION IN THE PROHIBITED PRACTICES, AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF IN RELATION TO THE CREATION OF A COMMON MARKET IN THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION, THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE IS APPROPRIATE TO THE GRAVITY OF THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY RULES ON COMPETITION .
Decision on costs
54 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS .
THEREFORE IT MUST BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS .
Operative part
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO BEAR THE COSTS .