1 . TO PREVENT PROHIBITED PRACTICES AS FAR AS THIS IS POSSIBLE;
2 . TO PERMIT BUYERS TO OBTAIN ACCURATE INFORMATION ON PRICES AND ALSO TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DETECTION OF DISCRIMINATION;
3 . TO ALLOW UNDERTAKINGS TO KNOW THE EXACT PRICES CHARGED BY THEIR COMPETITORS AND PROVIDE THEM WITH THE OPPORTUNITY OF ALIGNING THEIR OWN PRICES ON THEM . CONSEQUENTLY, A MERE INFRINGEMENT OF THE RULES REGARDING PUBLICATION OF PRICES POSTULATES THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE WHICH IS NOT SIMPLY A SYMBOLIC PENALTY BUT WHICH IS APPROPRIATE HAVING REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT INFRINGEMENT, WHICH ARE TO PREVENT THE ATTAINMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES MENTIONED ABOVE . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ABOVEMENTIONED INFRINGEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED - HAVING REGARD TO THE VALUE OF THE TRANSACTIONS COMPLAINED OF, THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE PRICE LISTS AND THOSE WHICH WERE APPLIED AND TO THE AMOUNT OF THE PRICE INCREASE APPLIED IN A DISCRIMINATORY MANNER TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS - JUSTIFY THE PECUNIARY SANCTION IMPOSED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY UPON THE APPLICANT AND THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE IS APPROPRIATE IN VIEW OF THE GRAVITY OF THE INFRINGEMENTS, BEARING IN MIND THE LIMITS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 64 OF THE TREATY . THE CONTESTED DECISION IS JUSTIFIED AND THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .