100Neither of those arguments can be accepted as evidence capable of corroborating the applicant's assertion that it did not subscribe to the agreed price initiatives. The Court must point out that the Commission has proved to the requisite legal standard that the applicant's participation in the meetings was not without anticompetitive intention, so that the first argument put forward by the applicant is not founded in fact. As regards the second argument, it must be observed that even if it were supported by the facts it would not gainsay the applicant's participation in the fixing of target prices at the meetings but would at most tend to show that the applicant did not put into effect the results of those meetings. Indeed, the Decision in no way asserts that the applicant charged prices which always corresponded to the price targets agreed upon at the meetings, which shows that the contested decision does not rely on the applicant's implementation of the outcome of meetings in order to establish that it participated in the fixing of those price targets.