INFRINGEMENT OF REGULATION NO 26 OF THE COUNCIL
211 CSM AND RT SUBMIT THAT, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE COURSES OF CONDUCT TO WHICH EXCEPTION IS TAKEN ARE CONCERTED PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY, THEY ARE NONE THE LESS LAWFUL BECAUSE THEY COME WITHIN THE SECOND EXCEPTION SPECIFIED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 26, ACCORDING TO WHICH ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE TREATY SHALL NOT APPLY, INTER ALIA, TO CONCERTED PRACTICES WHICH ARE 'NECESSARY FOR ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES SET OUT IN ARTICLE 39 OF THE TREATY '.
212 1 . CSM SUBMITS THAT WITHOUT THE PURCHASES FROM RT ITS PLANT AND DISTRIBUTIVE NETWORK WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FULLY UTILIZED, SO THAT IT WOULD NOT THEREFORE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OFFER BEET GROWERS A PRICE ABOVE THE MINIMUM PRICE LAID DOWN BY COMMUNITY RULES .
213 THE CONTESTED DECISION THEREFORE WRONGLY FAILED TO APPLY THE BEFOREMENTIONED PROVISION OF REGULATION NO 26 .
214 THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER ONLY THE PAYMENT OF A PRICE ABOVE THE SAID MINIMUM PRICE WAS LIKELY TO 'ENSURE A FAIR STANDARD OF LIVING FOR THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY', REPRESENTED IN THIS CASE BY BEET GROWERS, WHICH IS THE OBJECTIVE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 39 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF THE TREATY .
215 IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO RECORD THAT IN ANY CASE CSM HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO SHOW WITH ANY DEGREE OF ACCURACY THAT ONLY ITS PURCHASES FROM RT ENABLED IT TO OFFER SUCH A PRICE TO THE SAID PRODUCERS .
216 THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
217 2 . RT OBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT IN THE CONTESTED DECISION ( P . 43 LT . H . COL .) THAT THE BEFOREMENTIONED EXCEPTION OF REGULATION NO 26 CANNOT BENEFIT THE APPLICANTS BECAUSE 'THE PRACTICES IN QUESTION ARE NOT PART OF THE MEANS PROVIDED TO THIS END BY COMMUNITY RULES' IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE THE EMPLOYMENT AND STANDARDS OF LIVING OF BEET GROWERS .
218 ON THE CONTRARY RT TAKES THE VIEW THAT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO ADOPT ITS PARTICULAR POLICY IN AN ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN IN THE CASE OF THE SALE OF SUGAR PRODUCED WITHIN THE MAXIMUM QUOTA, RECEIPTS EQUAL TO THE INTERVENTION PRICE 'GUARANTEED TO PRODUCERS' AND TO WHICH THE LATTER WERE ENTITLED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PAY BEET GROWERS THE MINIMUM PRICE FOR SUGAR BEET PRESCRIBED BY COMMUNITY RULES .
219 IN FACT RT WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE INTERVENTION PRICE BY SELLING SUGAR TO THE BELGIAN INTERVENTION AGENCY, AS THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES INFORMED IT THAT THEY DID NOT WANT SUCH SALES .
220 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPLICANT FOUND THAT IT WAS FORCED, ON THE ONE HAND, TO PREVENT CUSTOMERS, TO WHICH IT HAD SOLD SUGAR FOR DENATURING AND AT A RELATIVELY LOW PRICE, RESELLING IT ON THE MARKET FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AT A PRICE LOWER THAN THE INTERVENTION PRICE AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, TO