DISPOSED OF ON THE DOMESTIC MARKET .
15 FROM THE ECONOMIC POINT OF VIEW THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE SUGAR MARKET ARE THAT SUGAR IS FOR THE MOST PART A HOMOGENEOUS AND STANDARDIZED PRODUCT, THAT TRANSPORT COSTS OF SUGAR ARE RELATIVELY HIGH AND THAT FREIGHT RATES MAKE THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUGAR BEET OVER LONG DISTANCES OUT OF THE QUESTION .
16 IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT, AS THE BEFOREMENTIONED SYSTEM OF NATIONAL QUOTAS STOPPED PRODUCTION MOVING GRADUALLY TO AREAS PARTICULARLY SUITABLE FOR THE CULTIVATION OF SUGAR BEET AND, IN ADDITION PREVENTED ANY LARGE INCREASE IN PRODUCTION, IT CUT DOWN THE QUANTITIES WHICH PRODUCERS CAN SELL IN THE COMMON MARKET .
17 THIS RESTRICTION TOGETHER WITH THE RELATIVELY HIGH TRANSPORT COSTS, IS LIKELY TO HAVE A NOT INCONSIDERABLE EFFECT ON ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN COMPETITION, NAMELY THE SUPPLY, AND CONSEQUENTLY ON THE VOLUME AND PATTERN OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES .
18 SIMILARLY THE FACT THAT A UNIFORM INTERVENTION PRICE WAS FIXED FOR ALL MEMBER STATES EXCEPT ITALY WAS LIKELY TO PREVENT A RAPID INCREASE OF INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE CAPABLE OF MAKING COMPETITION MORE INTENSE AND ALL THE MORE SO BECAUSE, ON THE ONE HAND, THE ORIGINAL MEMBER STATES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITALY AND LUXEMBOURG WERE ABLE TO MEET THEIR REQUIREMENTS TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT FROM THEIR OWN PRODUCTION AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SUGAR FACTORIES WITH VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS WERE MORE FAVOURABLY LOCATED IN RELATION TO THE AREAS OF CONSUMPTION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES THAN THE PRODUCERS OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES .
19 HOWEVER THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM ALSO CONTAINS ELEMENTS WHICH EITHER PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AND, CONSEQUENTLY, EFFECTIVE COMPETITION, OR AT LEAST ARE LIKELY TO MODERATE THE OPPOSITE EFFECTS ARISING OUT OF THE BEFOREMENTIONED FACTS .
20 IN THE FIRST PLACE THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF THIS SYSTEM - WHICH MOREOVER HAS ALLOWED AREAS HAVING A SURPLUS AS WELL AS AREAS HAVING A DEFICIT TO CONTINUE IN BEING - IS THE DISAPPEARANCE OF INTRA-COMMUNITY BARRIERS .
21 FURTHER THE 'PRICES' FIXED OR PROVIDED FOR BY THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM ARE NOT SALE PRICES FOR DEALERS, USERS AND CONSUMERS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW PRODUCERS SOME FREEDOM TO DETERMINE THEMSELVES THE PRICE AT WHICH THEY INTEND TO SELL THEIR PRODUCTS .
22 MOREOVER THERE IS A GOOD DEAL OF EVIDENCE ON THE COURT'S FILE, INCLUDING STATEMENTS BY SEVERAL APPLICANTS, TO SHOW THAT, WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF, THE SALE PRICE, FAR FROM APPEARING TO THE PERSONS CONCERNED TO BE A VALUE PREDETERMINED IN PRACTICE BY COMMUNITY RULES, WAS THE SUBJECT OF TOUGH NEGOTIATIONS .
23 FINALLY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET HAS NO APPRECIABLE EFFECT, EVEN INDIRECT, ON CERTAIN MATTERS WHICH ARE ALSO CAPABLE OF BEING THE SUBJECT OF, OR ENSURING EFFECTIVE COMPETITION, SUCH AS THE VOLUME OF DEMAND AND CONDITIONS OF SALE OTHER THAN THOSE RELATING TO THE PRICE OR QUALITY OF SERVICE .
24 WHATEVER CRITICISMS MAY BE MADE OF A SYSTEM, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO CONSOLIDATE A PARTITIONING OF NATIONAL