Avis juridique important
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 1981. - Criminal proceedings against Albert Clément, Gérard Ces and others. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris - France. - Common organization of the market in wines - Coupage of wines. - Case 2/81.
European Court reports 1981 Page 03339
Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - WINE - COUPAGE OF WINES IMPORTED FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES - PROHIBITION - WINES INTENDED FOR VINEGAR-MAKING - EXCLUSION
( REGULATION NO 816/70 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 26 ( 4 ))
Summary
ARTICLE 26 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 816/70 , WHICH PROHIBITS THE COUPAGE OF WINES IMPORTED FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , IS ONE OF A SET PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE COUPAGE OF WINES INTENDED TO BE MARKETED WITH A VIEW TO DIRECT HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND MUST CONSEQUENTLY BE INTERPRETED AS APPLYING TO WINES INTENDED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE , TO THE EXCLUSION OF WINES INTENDED FOR VINEGAR-MAKING .
Parties
IN CASE 2/81
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE ( REGIONAL COURT ), PARIS , ( ELEVENTH CRIMINAL CHAMBER ) FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT AGAINST
ALBERT CLEMENT , GERARD CES AND OTHERS
Subject of the case
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 26 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 816/70 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 APRIL 1970 LAYING DOWN ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN WINE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( I ), P . 234 ),
Grounds
1 BY JUDGMENT OF 24 JANUARY 1980 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 12 JANUARY 1981 , THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE ( REGIONAL COURT ), PARIS , REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 26 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 816/70 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 APRIL 1970 LAYING DOWN ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN WINE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( 1 ), P . 234 ).
2 THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE COURSE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES AGAINST ALBERT CLEMENT AND GERARD CES FOR HAVING ' ' IMPORTED WITHOUT A DECLARATION PROHIBITED GOODS WITH THE HELP OF INVOICES , CERTIFICATES OR ANY OTHER FALSE , INACCURATE , INCOMPLETE OR INAPPLICABLE DOCUMENTS ' ' .
3 THE ACCUSED ARE CHARGED WITH HAVING IMPORTED FROM THE NETHERLANDS BETWEEN 19 OCTOBER 1970 AND 3 AUGUST 1971 WINE INTENDED FOR VINEGAR-MAKING UNDER INTERNAL COMMUNITY TRANSIT DOCUMENTS ( FORM ' ' T 2 ' ' ) ISSUED BY THE NETHERLANDS AUTHORITIES AND WITH HAVING DECLARED THEM AS ORIGINATING IN THE COUNTRY FROM WHICH THEY HAD COME , WHEREAS THEY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DECLARED AS ORIGINATING IN ' ' NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES ' ' .
4 IT APPEARS FROM THE JUDGMENT MAKING THE REFERENCE THAT THE WINES IN QUESTION WERE GREEK AND ALGERIAN WINES WHICH WERE IMPORTED INTO THE NETHERLANDS BEFORE 1 JUNE 1970 ( THE DATE ON WHICH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REGULATION OF THE COUNCIL ENTERED INTO FORCE ) AND WERE BLENDED IN THE NETHERLANDS . THE WINES WERE IN FREE CIRCULATION IN THE NETHERLANDS AND WERE SOLD BY A NETHERLANDS COMPANY TO THE FRENCH COMPANIES , ALBERT CLEMENT AND GERARD CES , WHICH IMPORTED THEM INTO FRANCE AND DECLARED THEM AS BEING INTENDED FOR VINEGAR-MAKING .
5 ARTICLE 26 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 816/70 CITED ABOVE , WHICH CONCERNS WINES FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , PROVIDES THAT ' ' THE COUPAGE OF AN IMPORTED WINE WITH A COMMUNITY WINE AND THE COUPAGE ON COMMUNITY TERRITORY OF IMPORTED WINES SHALL BE PROHIBITED EXCEPT BY WAY OF DEROGATION TO BE DECIDED BY THE COUNCIL , ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VOTING PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 43 ( 2 ) OF THE TREATY ON A PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION ' ' .
6 REGULATION NO 1021/70 OF THE COMMISSION OF 29 MAY 1970 ( JOURNAL OFFICIEL 1970 , L 118 , P . 19 ) AUTHORIZED COUPAGE BETWEEN IMPORTED WINES UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 1970 ON THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATES WHICH HAD AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THE AUTHORIZATION ACCORDED AS A TRANSITIONAL MEASURE . HOWEVER , UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE REGULATION WINES PRODUCED BY SUCH COUPAGE COULD BE MARKETED ONLY ON THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THEY HAD BEEN SUBJECT TO COUPAGE AND UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 1970 ON THE TERRITORY OF OTHER MEMBER STATES WHICH HAD AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THE AUTHORIZATION THUS ACCORDED AS A TRANSITIONAL MEASURE . IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT FRANCE DID NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF THAT AUTHORIZATION .
7 THE ACCUSED MAINTAINED BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT THAT ARTICLE 26 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 816/70 DID NOT APPLY TO WINES INTENDED FOR VINEGAR-MAKING .
8 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE NATIONAL COURT REFERRED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE QUESTION ' ' WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 26 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 816/70 OF 28 APRIL 1970 APPLY TO WINES INTENDED FOR VINEGAR-MAKING ' ' .
9 BEFORE THE QUESTION RAISED IS CONSIDERED , IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS SUPPLIED TO THE COURT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS THAT WINES INTENDED FOR VINEGAR-MAKING IMPORTED INTO FRANCE ARE THE SUBJECT OF A SPECIAL CUSTOMS DECLARATION AND REMAIN UNDER CUSTOMS CONTROL UNTIL THEY ARE PROCESSED INTO VINEGAR . THOSE CONTROLS THEREFORE ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF SUCH WINES BEING MARKETED WITH A VIEW TO DIRECT HUMAN CONSUMPTION .
10 IN ORDER TO REPLY TO THE QUESTION RAISED , IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE GENERAL SCHEME OF ARTICLE 26 OF THE REGULATION . PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) PROVIDES THAT WHERE COUPAGE TAKES PLACE , ONLY PRODUCTS RESULTING FROM THE COUPAGE BETWEEN TABLE WINES AND FROM THE COUPAGE OF TABLE WINES WITH WINES SUITABLE FOR YIELDING TABLE WINES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS TABLE WINES , PROVIDED THAT THE SUITABLE WINES IN QUESTION HAVE A TOTAL NATURAL ALCOHOLIC STRENGTH NOT EXCEEDING 17* AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS . PARAGRAPH ( 2 ) PROVIDES THAT THE COUPAGE OF A WINE SUITABLE FOR YIELDING A TABLE WINE FROM A GIVEN WINE-GROWING ZONE WITH A TABLE WINE PRODUCED IN ANOTHER WINE-GROWING ZONE MAY YIELD A TABLE WINE ONLY IF THAT PROCESS TAKES PLACE IN THE WINE-GROWING ZONE WHERE THE WINE SUITABLE FOR YIELDING A TABLE WINE WAS PRODUCED . COUPAGE BETWEEN WINES SUITABLE FOR YIELDING TABLE WINES IS TO BE AUTHORIZED ONLY IF THEY ARE PRODUCED IN THE SAME WINE-GROWING ZONE AND IF COUPAGE IS CARRIED OUT IN THE SAID ZONE .
11 PARAGRAPH ( 3 ) ADDS THAT COUPAGE OF A WINE SUITABLE FOR YIELDING A WHITE TABLE WINE OR OF A WHITE TABLE WINE WITH A WINE SUITABLE FOR YIELDING A RED TABLE WINE OR WITH A RED TABLE WINE MAY NOT YIELD A TABLE WINE , EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CASES TO BE DETERMINED AND IN WHICH THE RESULTANT PRODUCT HAS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A RED TABLE WINE .
12 ACCORDING TO ANNEX II TO THE REGULATION , THE DESCRIPTIONS ' ' WINE SUITABLE FOR YIELDING TABLE WINE ' ' AND ' ' TABLE WINE ' ' APPEARING IN THOSE THREE PARAGRAPHS AND ALSO IN PARAGRAPH ( 6 ) CONCERNING THE DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 26 ARE RESERVED FOR WINES PRODUCED IN THE COMMUNITY .
13 PARAGRAPH ( 4 ), WHICH CONCERNS THE COUPAGE OF IMPORTED WINES , IS THEREFORE ONE OF A SET OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE COUPAGE OF WINES INTENDED TO BE MARKETED WITH A VIEW TO DIRECT HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND MUST CONSEQUENTLY BE INTERPRETED AS APPLYING TO WINES INTENDED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE , TO THE EXCLUSION OF WINES INTENDED FOR VINEGAR-MAKING .
14 SUPPORT FOR THAT INTERPRETATION IS TO BE FOUND IN THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 27 AND 28 OF THE REGULATION . ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 27 , WINE DERIVED FROM THE WINE VARIETIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 16 ( VINE VARIETIES APPROVED FOR CULTIVATION IN THE COMMUNITY ) BUT NOT CORRESPONDING TO THE DEFINITIONS OF ' ' WINE SUITABLE FOR YIELDING TABLE WINE ' ' AND ' ' TABLE WINE ' ' MAY BE ONLY USED FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE FAMILIES OF INDIVIDUAL WINE GROWERS , FOR THE PRODUCTION OF WINE VINEGAR OR FOR DISTILLATION . ARTICLE 28 PROVIDES IN TURN THAT IMPORTED WINES , EXCEPT FOR LIQUEUR WINES AND SPARKLING WINES , MAY BE RELEASED FOR DIRECT HUMAN CONSUMPTION ONLY ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS ( PARAGRAPH ( 1 )) AND THAT IMPORTED WINES OTHER THAN THOSE REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) MAY BE USED ONLY FOR PURPOSES PERMITTED FOR CORRELATED COMMUNITY VINES .
15 CONSEQUENTLY , THE REPLY WHICH MUST BE GIVEN TO THE QUESTION PUT TO THE COURT IS THAT ARTICLE 26 ( 4 ) OF THE REGULATION DOES NOT APPLY TO WINES INTENDED FOR VINEGAR-MAKING .
Decision on costs
16 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC AND BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED , IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT , THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ),
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED TO IT BY THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , PARIS , BY JUDGMENT OF 24 JANUARY 1980 , HEREBY RULES :
THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 26 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 816/70 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 APRIL 1970 LAYING DOWN ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN WINE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( 1 ), P . 234 ) DO NOT APPLY TO WINES INTENDED FOR VINEGAR-MAKING .
Top