FACT THAT THE TWO LARGE NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS OF PUBLISHERS AND BOOKSELLERS HAVE EXTENDED TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE THE CLOSELY SUPERVISED RULES WHICH ARE IN FORCE WITHIN THEM CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENTLY MARKED RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION TO JUSTIFY THE APPRECIATION EFFECTED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ). THE SUBMISSION PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANTS MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
5 . SUBMISSION RELATING TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY PREJUDICIAL EFFECT ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES
47 THE LAST SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPLICANTS AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) IS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WRONG TO CONSIDER THAT THE AGREEMENT HAD ANY PREJUDICIAL EFFECT ON COMPETITION IN TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES . ON THIS SUBJECT THEY EXPLAIN THAT , REGARD BEING HAD TO THE LINGUISTIC COMMUNITY BETWEEN THE NETHERLANDS AND THE FLEMISH PART OF BELGIUM , THE GEOGRAPHICAL REGION TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IS NOT THE POLITICAL TERRITORY OF THE TWO STATES IN QUESTION BUT THE DUTCH-LANGUAGE TERRITORY INASMUCH AS IT FORMS A SINGLE ENTITY . WHEN MATTERS ARE CONSIDERED FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW IT MAY BE SEEN THAT WHAT IS AT ISSUE IS AN EFFECT PURELY INTERNAL TO THE REGION IN QUESTION AND THAT THERE IS THEREFORE NO PREJUDICIAL EFFECT ON THE COMMON MARKET . THAT STATE OF AFFAIRS , THEY ALLEGE , WAS RECENTLY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE BELGO-NETHERLANDS TREATY ON THE DUTCH-LANGUAGE UNION CONCLUDED ON 9 SEPTEMBER 1980 ( MONITEUR BELGE 1982 , P . 1786 , AND STAATSBLAD VAN HET KONINKRIJK DER NEDERLANDEN 1981 , P . 453 ).
48 THAT LINE OF ARGUMENT ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANTS DISREGARDS THE EXPRESS WORDING OF ARTICLE 85 , WHICH REFERS TO ' ' TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ' ' . IN THIS CASE THE AGREEMENT INDISPUTABLY AFFECTS TRADE BETWEEN TWO MEMBER STATES , NOTWITHSTANDING THE LINGUISTIC LINKS BETWEEN THEM . THIS SUBMISSION ALSO MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
49 IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE FOREGOING THAT THE COMMISSION WAS RIGHT TO REGARD THE AGREEMENT AS FALLING WITHIN THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ).
THE APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 85 ( 3 )
50 AT THE TIME OF NOTIFYING THE AGREEMENT THE APPLICANTS , IN CASE IT WAS CONSIDERED INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ), REQUESTED THE COMMISSION TO MAKE USE OF THE POWER RESERVED TO IT BY ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ) IN ORDER TO DECLARE THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 1 INAPPLICABLE TO THEIR AGREEMENT . BY ARTICLE 2 OF ITS DECISION THE COMMISSION DISMISSED THAT APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION . IN PARAGRAPHS 47 TO 63 OF THE PREAMBLE IT SET OUT ITS REASONS FOR STATING , IN THE LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ), THAT IN ITS VIEW THE AGREEMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRIBUTION TO IMPROVING THE PRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS AND DID NOT ALLOW CONSUMERS A FAIR SHARE OF THE RESULTING BENEFIT , THAT THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE AGREEMENT DID NOT APPEAR TO BE INDISPENSABLE AND FINALLY