THE MARKET AND THAT INTENDED FOR EXPORT . WHEN AN UNDERTAKING IN A DOMINANT POSITION WITH THE COMMON MARKET ABUSES ITS POSITION IN SUCH A WAY THAT A COMPETITOR IN THE COMMON MARKET IS LIKELY TO BE ELIMINATED, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER THE CONDUCT RELATES TO THE LATTER'S EXPORTS OR ITS TRADE WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET, ONCE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THIS ELIMINATION WILL HAVE REPERCUSSIONS ON THE COMPETITIVE STRUCTURE WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET .
34 MOREOVER THE CONTRARY ARGUMENT WOULD IN PRACTICE MEAN THAT THE CONTROL OF ZOJA'S PRODUCTION AND OUTLETS WOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF CSC AND ISTITUTO . FINALLY ITS COST PRICES WOULD HAVE BEEN SO AFFECTED THAT THE ETHAMBUTOL PRODUCED BY IT WOULD POSSIBLY BECOME UNMARKETABLE .
35 MOREOVER IT EMERGED AT THE HEARING THAT ZOJA IS AT PRESENT ABLE TO EXPORT AND DOES INDEED EXPORT THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION TO AT LEAST TWO MEMBER STATES . THESE EXPORTS ARE ENDANGERED BY THE DIFFICULTIES CAUSED TO THIS COMPANY AND BY REASON OF THIS TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES MAY BE AFFECTED .
( E ) CSC AND ISTITUTO AS AN ECONOMIC UNIT
36 THE APPLICANTS REFER TO THE CASE LAW OF THE COURT AND IN PARTICULAR TO JUDGMENTS 48/69, 52/69 AND 53/69 OF 14 JULY 1972 ( REC . 1972, P . 619, 787 AND 845 ), AND DISPUTE WHETHER CSC EFFECTIVELY EXERCISES A POWER OF CONTROL OVER ISTITUTO AND WHETHER THESE CONSTITUTE AN ECONOMIC UNIT . THE TWO COMPANIES HAVE ALWAYS ACTED INDEPENDENTLY, SO THAT CSC CANNOT BE DEEMED RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF ISTITUTO NOR ISTITUTO FOR THOSE OF CSC . THEREFORE EVEN IF CSC HOLDS A DOMINANT POSITION WITHIN THE WORLD MARKET IN RAW MATERIALS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ETHAMBUTOL, IT HAS NOT ACTED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AND THEREFORE THE AUTHOR OF THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF CAN ONLY BE ISTITUTO WHICH HOWEVER DOES NOT HAVE A DOMINANT POSITION WITHIN THE MARKET IN QUESTION .
37 IN THE DISPUTED DECISION IN SECTION II-A CSC'S HOLDING OF SHARE CAPITAL AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF ISTITUTO ARE SET OUT . IT IS POINTED OUT IN THAT SECTION THAT THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF CSC SHOW ISTITUTO AS ONE OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES . IT IS INFERRED FROM THE PROHIBITION ISSUED IN 1970 BY CSC TO ITS DISTRIBUTORS ON RESELLING NITROPROPANE AND AMINOBUTANOL FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ETHAMBUTOL THAT CSC WAS NOT ABSTAINING FROM EXERCISING ITS POWER OF CONTROL OVER ISTITUTO . IT TAKES NOTE OF AN ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF ISTITUTO TO TAKE OVER ZOJA BY MEANS OF A MERGER IN WHICH IT IS UNLIKELY THAT CSC PLAYED NO PART . THE CONCLUSION IS REACHED THAT 'CSC HOLDS THE POWER OF CONTROL OF ISTITUTO AND EXERCISES ITS CONTROL IN FACT AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO ISTITUTO'S RELATIONS WITH ZOJA' AND IT IS THEREFORE PROPER 'TO TREAT THE COMPANIES OF CSC AND ISTITUTO AS CONSTITUTING IN THEIR RELATIONS WITH ZOJA AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 86 A SINGLE UNDERTAKING OR ECONOMIC