, THESE BEING DOCUMENTS AND PARTS OF DOCUMENTS WHICH THE COMMISSION REGARDED AS QUALIFYING FOR PROTECTION AS BUSINESS SECRETS AND WHICH IT THEREFORE WITHHELD WHEN IT TRANSMITTED THE REMAINDER OF THE DOCUMENTS TO THE APPLICANTS IN THEIR CAPACITY AS COMPLAINANTS .
7 IN THIS CONNECTION , IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE ACTIONS ARE BROUGHT AGAINST THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION TO DISMISS THE APPLICANTS ' COMPLAINTS FOLLOWING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE 1981 AGREEMENTS BY THE 1984 AGREEMENTS . HOWEVER , ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND PARTS OF DOCUMENTS WHOSE PRODUCTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANTS CONCERN THE 1981 AGREEMENTS . THOSE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASES NOW BEFORE THE COURT EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THEY REVEAL THE INITIAL INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENTS . IN THE LATTER RESPECT , HOWEVER , THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT ALREADY CONTAIN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION . IN CONTRAST , THE DETAILS OF THOSE AGREEMENTS AND THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE PARTIES AND THE POSITION ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO THOSE DETAILS HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE CASES NOW BEFORE THE COURT .
8 CONSEQUENTLY , THAT FIRST APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED .
9 SECONDLY , R . J . REYNOLDS INDUSTRIES INC . HAS , ESSENTIALLY , REQUESTED THE COURT TO CALL UPON THE COMMISSION TO SUBMIT TO IT ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN THE COMMISSION ' S POSSESSION WHICH MIGHT REVEAL THE REASONS FOR WHICH THE COMMISSION PROPOSED TO PROHIBIT FORMALLY THE 1981 AGREEMENTS AND FOR WHICH IT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 1984 AGREEMENTS DID NOT COME WITHIN THE PROHIBITION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE TREATY .
10 IN SUPPORT OF THAT APPLICATION , THE APPLICANT CONTENDS , IN ESSENCE , THAT , IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL ASSESSMENTS OF THE 1981 AGREEMENTS SET OUT BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS AND NOT WITHDRAWN IN THE CONTESTED DECISION , THE COMMISSION SHOULD ALSO HAVE CONDEMNED THE 1984 AGREEMENTS . THE COMMISSION HAS GIVEN NO VALID REASONS FOR THIS CHANGE OF ASSESSMENT EITHER IN THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH THE CONTESTED DECISION IS BASED OR IN THE COURSE OF THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE . THE REASONS FOR THOSE TWO APPARENTLY CONFLICTING ASSESSMENTS SHOULD THEREFORE BE VERIFIED . IN THE APPLICANT ' S VIEW , THERE ARE EVEN GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE CHANGE WAS DUE TO REASONS EXTRANEOUS TO THE CASES THEMSELVES . IN THAT REGARD , THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT ' PRESSURE ' HAD BEEN PUT ON THE COMMISSION , IN PARTICULAR AT SEPARATE MEETINGS HELD WITH THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENTS WHICH WERE ATTENDED BY A FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION IN THE CAPACITY AS ADVISER TO PHILIP MORRIS .
11 WITH REGARD TO THAT POINT , IT SHOULD BE SAID THAT EXAMINATION BY THE COURT OF THE COMMISSION ' S INTERNAL FILE WITH A VIEW TO VERIFYING WHETHER THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION WAS INFLUENCED BY FACTORS OTHER THAN THOSE INDICATED IN THE