205Third, it is apparent from Article 4 of the contested decision that the Commission required HB immediately to cease the infringements of Articles 85(1) and 86 of the Treaty constituted by its network of distribution agreements and to refrain from taking any measure having the same object or effect. The Court finds that this provision is not disproportionate or discriminatory, as it merely prohibits HB from reintroducing the exclusivity clause in the same circumstances as those referred to in Articles 1 and 3 of the contested decision, and thereby guarantees the effectiveness of the contested decision, by preventing a return in the future to the anticompetitive practice found to exist (see, by analogy, the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-279/95 PLangnese-Iglo v Commission [1998] ECR I-5609, paragraph 39).