APPEARS THAT, HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THESE REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION, THE COOPERATION, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, EITHER WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE OR WOULD HAVE ASSUMED A FORM DIFFERENT FROM THAT FOUND TO HAVE EXISTED BY THE COMMISSION .
66 IT EMERGES FROM THE CONTESTED DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT MADE SUFFICIENT ALLOWANCE FOR THE EFFECT OF THOSE REGULATIONS AND HAS CONSEQUENTLY OVERLOOKED A CRUCIAL FACTOR IN THE EVALUATION OF THE INFRINGEMENTS WHICH IT ALLEGES .
67 4 . FURTHER THE OBJECT AND EFFECT OF ITALIAN REGULATIONS AND THE WAY IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED WAS TO MATCH SUPPLY EXACTLY WITH DEMAND AND THEREBY REMOVE A VITAL ELEMENT OF NORMAL COMPETITION .
68 FURTHERMORE THE SYSTEM DESCRIBED ABOVE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED THE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED TO NEGOTIATE A PRICE WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED FROM THE FREE MARKET FORCES OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND .
69 IN ADDITION, THE ITALIAN REGULATIONS IMPEDED, INDIRECTLY BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, THE BUYER'S FREEDOM TO CHOOSE HIS SUPPLIER AND VICE VERSA .
70 MOREOVER THE ONLY EFFECTIVE COMPETITION, WHICH THESE REGULATIONS, AT LEAST OSTENSIBLY, ALLOWED TO REMAIN, NAMELY COMPETITION RELATING TO THE AMOUNTS OF THE 'SOVRAPREZZO' TO BE TENDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ADJUDICATIONS TO TENDER, WAS LIKELY TO INCREASE A NOT INCONSIDERABLE ITEM OF THE COST PRICE OF ANY PURCHASER AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE PRICES APPLIED WHEN THE SUGAR AWARDED IS RESOLD, WHEREAS THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY RELATING TO COMPETITION ARE ON THE CONTRARY DESIGNED, INTER ALIA, TO PREVENT CARTELS ALLOWING ITS MEMBERS TO APPLY UNJUSTIFIED PRICES .
71 ALTHOUGH, AS HAS BEEN INDICATED EARLIER, THE SYSTEM OF NATIONAL QUOTAS, BY TENDING TO PARTITION NATIONAL MARKETS, ONLY LEAVES A RESIDUAL FIELD FOR THE OPERATION OF THE RULES OF COMPETITION, THAT FIELD IS IN TURN TO A GREAT EXTENT FUNDAMENTALLY RESTRICTED IN ITS SCOPE BY THE SPECIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE ITALIAN MARKET .
72 THESE CONSIDERATIONS SHOW THAT THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF COULD NOT APPRECIABLY IMPEDE COMPETITION AND DOES NOT THEREFORE COME WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY .
73 SUBPARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF THE CONTESTED DECISION MUST THEREFORE BE ANNULLED .
CHAPTER 2
THE COMPLAINT OF A CONCERTED PRACTICE HAVING AS ITS OBJECT THE PROTECTION OF THE NETHERLANDS MARKET
74 SUBPARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF THE CONTESTED DECISION BLAMES SU AND CSM, ON THE ONE HAND, AND RT AND PFEIFER UND LANGEN, ON THE OTHER HAND, FOR HAVING 'SINCE THE 1968/69 MARKETING YEAR ( PFEIFER UND LANGEN ONLY SINCE THE 1970/71 MARKETING YEAR )' - THAT IS TO SAY FROM THE 1968/69 TO THE 1971/72 MARKETING YEAR - 'COMMITTED INFRINGEMENTS OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) BY ENGAGING IN A CONCERTED PRACTICE HAVING AS ITS OBJECT AND EFFECT THE CONTROL OF DELIVERIES OF SUGAR ON THE NETHERLANDS MARKET FROM BELGIUM AND THE WESTERN PART OF GERMANY AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PROTECTION OF THAT MARKET '.
SECTION 1 : PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION : THE 'COOPERATIVE VERENIGING SUIKER,