APPLICANT' S COMPLAINTS IN THIS RESPECT ARE UNFOUNDED .
VI - GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE AGREEMENT WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET
163 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE APPLICANT PARTICIPATED WITH OTHER PRODUCERS OF WUININE AND QUINIDINE IN AN AGREEMENT PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 85 OF THE EEC TREATY .
164 THIS AGREEMENT CONTINUED IN MOST OF ITS FORMS EVEN AFTER THE MEETING ON 29 OCTOBER 1962 .
165 SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE AGREEMENT AFTER 1962 EXIST ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION OF SALES QUOTAS .
166 NEVERTHELESS, THE FACT THAT THE UNDERTAKINGS DID NOT CONTINUE TO APPLY THE SYSTEM OF QUOTAS DOES NOT SEEM PERCEPTIBLY TO HAVE IMPROVED THE CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION, SINCE THEY CONTINUED JOINTLY TO FIX PRICES, TO APPLY UNIFORMLY TO THEIR DELIVERIES IN THE COMMON MARKET JOINT PRICE INCREASES ARRANGED IN MARCH AND OCTOBER 1964 AND DECIDED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE EXPORT AGREEMENT AND FINALLY TO MAINTAIN PROTECTION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE DOMESTIC MARKETS AND THE PROHIBITION ON THE FRENCH UNDERTAKINGS' PRODUCTION OF SYNTHETIC QUINIDINE .
167 HOWEVER, THE APPLICATION OF UNIFORM PRICES FOR DELIVERIES TO ITALY, BELGIUM AND LUXEMBOURG HAS ONLY BEEN PROVED TO EXIST UP TO APRIL 1964 .
168 FINALLY, EVEN IF IT MUST BE CONCEDED THAT THE EXPORT AGREEMENT COULD HAVE OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE COMMON MARKET, IT MUST BE FOUND THAT IN FACT THE MEMBERS OF THE CARTEL ATTRIBUTED GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE JOINT APPLICATION OF BOTH AGREEMENTS .
169 ALTHOUGH FROM OCTOBER 1963 THE EXPORT AGREEMENT WAS DECLARED TO BE " IN ABEYANCE ", IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DECLARATIONS MADE BY THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED AT THEIR SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS TOGETHER WITH THEIR SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT AS A WHOLE THAT THEY CONTINUED TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN UPHOLDING THAT AGREEMENT, IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO ITS POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET .
VII - COMPLAINTS RELATING TO THE FINE
170 THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT THE COMMISSION IMPOSED ON IT A FINE FOR AN INFRINGEMENT WHICH HAD COME TO AN END .
171 IT CLAIMS THAT THE FINES PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 15 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 ARE IN THE NATURE OF PERIODIC PENALTY PAYMENTS AND NOT PENALTIES OF A CRIMINAL LAW NATURE .
172 THE PENALTIES PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 15 OF REGULATION NO 17 ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF PERIODIC PENALTY PAYMENTS .
173 THEIR OBJECT IS TO SUPPRESS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES AND TO PREVENT ANY REFERENCE .
174 THIS OBJECT COULD NOT BE ADEQUATELY ATTAINED IF THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY WERE TO BE RESTRICTED TO CURRENT INFRINGEMENTS ALONE .
175 THE COMMISSION' S POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTIES IS IN NO WAY AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE CONDUCT CONSTITUTING THE INFRINGEMENT HAS CEASED AND THAT IT CAN NO LONGER HAVE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS .
176 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE, THE GRAVITY OF THE INFRINGEMENT IS TO BE APPRAISED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IN PARTICULAR THE NATURE OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON COMPETITION,