, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT DEPRIVE SOME PERSONS CONCERNED OF ACCESS TO THE SHARE ALLOCATED TO THAT STATE AND SO LONG AS THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF TRADERS AND THE TOTAL QUANTITIES TO WHICH THOSE CATEGORIES HAVE ACCESS ARE NOT DETERMINED IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER . IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED MAY FIND ITSELF OBLIGED TO RESORT TO A NUMBER OF CRITERIA .
13 THOSE CRITERIA , WHICH ARE INTENDED TO ENSURE AN ALLOCATION WHICH IS ' ' APPROPRIATE FROM AN ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT ' ' , MAY VARY FROM ONE MEMBER STATE TO ANOTHER , DEPENDING ON THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IN EACH STATE . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROHIBITION OF ALL DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN TRADERS IN THE COMMUNITY , SINCE IT CAN ONLY APPLY TO COMPARABLE SITUATIONS , RELATES IN THIS CASE SOLELY TO THE PERSONS CONCERNED WHO ARE ' ' ESTABLISHED ' ' WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE WHICH HAS CHOSEN THIS SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION .
14 THE REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 2956/79 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A SYSTEM OF ADMINISTERING A NATIONAL SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY TARIFF QUOTA FOR FROZEN BEEF AND VEAL WHICH IS BASED ON A NUMBER OF CRITERIA IN ORDER TO DEFINE THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF PERSONS CONCERNED DOES NOT END EQUAL TREATMENT OF THOSE PERSONS IF THE SYSTEM IS APPLIED BY THE STATES CONCERNED ' ' TO ALL PERSONS ESTABLISHED WITHIN THEIR TERRITORIES ' ' .
SECOND QUESTION
15 ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 805/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 , TO WHICH THE SECOND QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT REFERS , PROVIDES THAT : ' ' DISPOSAL OF THE PRODUCTS BOUGHT IN BY THE INTERVENTION AGENCIES . . . SHALL TAKE PLACE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO AVOID ANY DISTURBANCE OF THE MARKET AND TO ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO GOODS AND EQUAL TREATMENT OF PURCHASERS . ' ' THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN ACTION MAINTAIN THAT THE NEW SYSTEM ADOPTED BY THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO ALLOCATE THE SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY QUOTA WHICH IT HAS BEEN ALLOTTED IS IN BREACH OF THAT PROVISION INASMUCH AS IT ALLOWS BUYERS OF MEAT HELD IN STOCK BY INTERVENTION AGENCIES , MORE PRECISELY BUYERS FROM THE GERMAN INTERVENTION AGENCY , TO HAVE A 10 % SHARE IN THE QUOTA .
16 THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN ACTION IS THAT THAT SYSTEM CAUSES A DISTURBANCE OF THE MARKET BECAUSE UNDERTAKINGS ESTABLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY WHICH HAVE BOUGHT MEAT HELD IN INTERVENTION DERIVE A PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE TARIFF QUOTA , WHEREAS ANY OTHER UNDERTAKING ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IS EXCLUDED FROM SUCH ADVANTAGES .
17 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . THE GERMAN RULES GOVERNING THE ALLOCATION OF THE NATIONAL SHARE OF THE QUOTA DO NOT CAUSE ANY DISTURBANCE OF THE MARKET ;