Contents
In Joined Cases 10 to 14/75Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Cour d'appel, Aix- en-Provence, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court between:THE PROCUREUR DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE AT THE COUR D'APPEL, Aix- en-ProvenceandFÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES PRODUCTEURS DE VINS DE TABLE ET VINS DE PAYS, Paris, plaintiff claiming damages,of the first partPAUL LOUIS LAHAILLE, residing in Marseilles (Case 10/75)ALBERT JEAN BOURGIN, residing in Marseilles (Case 11/75)ROBERT HÉNRI MARGNAT, residing in Marseilles (Case 12/75)PIERRE SENECLAUZE, residing in Marseilles (Case 13/75)PAUL DAVID CREMIEUX, residing in Marseilles (Case 14/75)THE COURTcomposed of: R. Lecourt, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and A. J. Mackenzie Stuart, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, R. Monaco, P. Pescatore, H. Kutscher, M. Sørensen (Rapporteur) and A. O'Keeffe, Judges,Advocate-General: H. MayrasRegistrar: A. Van Houttegives the following
Judgment
Issues of fact and of law
I —Facts and procedure
II —Written observations submitted to the Court
1.Observations of Mr Margnat (Case 12/75)
Mr Margnat first of all examines the circumstances in which the problem giving rise to the preliminary questions arose. He claims, inter alia, that to his knowledge the presumption of over-alcoholization has not for years given rise to legal proceedings within French territory in respect of French wines and that it was only applied systematically in connexion with wines from Italy because since 1971, shortly after Regulation No 816/70 was adopted, it looked as though it would constitute a bar to imports from that country.As regards the first question, Mr Margnat observes that Regulation No 816/70 laid down a set of consistent measures to ensure freedom of intra-Community trade. He does not contest the fact that individual oenological processes may be adopted by the different States, but he claims that wine from one country in the Community which complies with the requirements of Regulation No 816/70 and has an accompanying certificate, cannot be rejected in another State.The aim of the Community rule is, in his opinion, to promote free trade between the Member States in all wines which satisfy the requirements of Regulation No 816/70 in conjunction with Items 7 and 10 of Annex II.Therefore the Court ought to answer the first question to the effect that table wines, defined according to the rules laid down in Regulation No 816/70, only have to satisfy the rules for analysis provided in that Regulation and Item 10 of Annex II thereof regardless of the national practices and regulations of the importing State.Then Mr Margnat observes that the second question is only the corollary of the first The question is whether the presumption of over-alcoholization under national law is an obstacle to the free circulation of wines and therefore a measure which is prohibited by Article 31 of Regulation No 816/70.He considers that the presumption is a measure which goes beyond the intended operation of the regulations in question and that it is therefore in breach of Article 31 of Regulation No 816/70.He recalls that the presumption is recognized only by French law and that at the time it was only devised for French wines.On the national level, the application of the rule is already considered by oenologists as likely to lead to erroneous conclusions because it does not take account of all the influences which may disturb the ordinary composition of wines. This seems to be the reason why this provision is not, in practice, applied in France.But even if it could have been applied, an expert's report would have been ordered to enable a person charged with such an offence to bring evidence to the contrary. Although it is difficult on the domestic level to bring evidence to the contrary, it is practically impossible in respect of wines produced outside France, since these have analytical and organoleptic properties different from those of French wines. Thus the experts summoned before the Tribunal correctionnel, Marseilles, declared that the alcohol/dry extract ratio could have no meaning of its own when the wines came from Community countries since the conditions of their production, the wine-making processes and their place of origin were difficult to determine.Then Mr Margnat refers to the actual preamble to Regulation No 816/70 according to which it is prohibited to introduce any measures contrary to the common agricultural organization and any measures which might involve discrimination. The same regulation prohibits all quantitative restrictions or measures having equivalent effect in intra-Community trade. But the aim of the actions brought against French importers when they imported Italian wines into France was the quantitative restriction of imports of these wines into France.This was confirmed by a French circular of 14 April 1972 marked ‘Confidential’ which specified for tax inspectors the aims of the verification procedures carried out on wines, and admitted that they were intended to discourage the importation of foreign wines into France.Mr Margnat claims that his analysis is supported by Regulation No 1022/70 which specifies that the accompanying certificate shall be issued by the competent agency of the producer Member State only if this agency has ascertained that the wine is wholesome and of good merchantable quality and complies, moreover, with the requirements of subparagraph (a) or (b) of Article 27 (2) or Regulation No 816/70.In Mr Margnat's opinion, the Court, without needing to give a ruling on the validity of a provision of national law, must therefore declare that in intra-Community trade, the presumption in national law of the over-alcoholization of table wines is inapplicable and cannot be relied upon without depriving one of the fundamental principles of the EEC Treaty of its meaning, that is, the free movement of goods between Member States.
2.Observations of Mr Seneclauze (Case 13/75)
Mr Seneclauze observes first that for each consignment of wines imported from Italy in 1971, the French customs officials took a sample, had it analysed by their laboratory, acknowledged that it complied with Community legislation and allowed it to be unloaded, and that it was only some months later after demonstrations on the part of French winegrowers had taken place that the French Service des fraudes took samples from a vat and carried out an analysis of its own.As regards the first question, he examines Regulations Nos 816/70 and 1022/70 and claims that when the wine comes from a State within the Community, the importing State cannot use its own legislation on oenological processes in opposition to it if the wine involved in the trading transaction has a clear certificate issued by the official laboratory of the producer country which states that it conforms to the requirements of Regulation No 816/70.The Court should therefore say in answer to this question that table wines need comply only with the rules of analysis laid down in Annex II to this Regulation, as officially certified by the producer country, and not with national rules, in order to circulate within the territory of Member States of the Community.As regards the second question, Mr Seneclauze claims that the French rules in question are inapplicable to intra-Community trade because they establish a presumption in law of over-alcoholization which is not recognized in the other Member States or in the Community regulations, and because the presumption in law is the result of French legislation which is in the main out-dated and was adopted at a time when wine-making processes were archaic and the science of oenology hardly existed.French oenological experts have shown that the value of the old alcohol/dry extract ratio under the legislation of 1898 could no longer be upheld, and the legal experts in the case before the Tribunal correctionnel, Marseilles, admitted that the alcohol/dry extract ratio should be interpreted by taking all sorts of factors into consideration; the three leading authorities Jaulme, Portal and Brun have acknowledged that in this case, if the alcohol/dry extract ratio were interpreted according to the works of Bouvatier and Sudraud there was no over-alcoholization of the wines in question.Recalling Article 40 (3) of the EEC Treaty, Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 816/70 and Article 27 of the same regulation, Mr Seneclauze suggests the following answer to the second question:‘Regulation (EEC) No 816/70 is incompatible in intra-Community trade with regulations peculiar to one country which provide for a presumption of the addition of alcohol based on the alcohol/dry extract ratio which on the other hand is still valid under French domestic law.’
3.Observations of the Fédération nationale des producteurs de vin de table et de vins de pays
In the introduction to its observations, the Fédération observes inter alia that it has been joined as plaintiff claiming damages several thousand times in criminal proceedings against unscrupulous wine producers or traders, and it therefore considers itself very well placed to show that in fact the preventive system which has been applied without respite to French vine-growers is perfectly adapted to the circumstances which arise from the EEC Treaty.The Fédération first examines the contents of the French regulations. In particular it observes that it has never been alleged that the presumption of over-alcoholization was too oppressive. The very fact that the rule now being contested is of long standing is enough to show, in any case, that it was not adopted in order to block common market products.It is useless to allege that the procedure is only valid in respect of French wines. In fact, Article 8 of the Code du vin was applied by the French administration in all the North African countries whose wines were of a different composition and alcoholic strength from those of wines produced in Metropolitan France.The preventive French system is moreover not inflexible. It takes into consideration, as attested by recent circulars, special methods of winemaking and it permits in advance certain means of proof which are put at the disposal of the defence.Then the Fédération examines the objections based on the ‘Community methods for analysis’ which differ from the 100o method. It is correct that the 70o evaporation method and the densimeter method enable more complete data on all the constituents of the wine to be obtained — that is, the total dry extract — because the 100o method which is carried out in the open air subjects the wine to a harsh process which causes some particles of the unresistant constituents to disperse in the atmosphere. However, if it is desired to determine whether the wine is over-alcoholized, the fluctuations owing to the special characteristics of each wine have to be ignored and in this special form of investigation, only the reduced extract is of interest. When over-alcoholization is being investigated, the 100o method has the advantage of volatilizing the substances which vary most from one wine to another. Consequently, the reduced extract laid down in Article 8 of the Code du vin, far from being a datum inferior to the total extract, constitutes the separate result of a different form of investigation.For this reason the Fédération strongly protests against all allegations that the rules laid down in Article 8 of the Code du vin for the examination of wine should be reviewed in the light of present Community rules.As regards the question of the compatibility of Article 8 of the Code du vin with Community regulations, the Fédération first claims that the preventive system laid down in Article 8 does not infringe any provisions of Community law as the system has no equivalent under Community law. Moreover, no question of compatibility can arise with regard to provisions which are in accordance with a Community objective. Articles 39a and 13 of Regulations (EEC) Nos 816/70 and 817/70 respectively provide in fact that each Member State shall control wines ‘marketed’ within its territory.Then the Fédération claims that the method of analysis laid down in Article 8 of the Code du vin is not incompatible with the Community regulations. It recalls that examination of the reduced extract and that of the total extract are not conflicting or even competing methods since in fact they have different objectives in view. This follows moreover from the Community regulations themselves. Thus Article 39a of Regulation No 816/70 which was intended to establish the control of the product marketed did not provide rules defining fraudulent practice. On the other hand, when Article 39 provides for methods of analysis, these are exclusively to establish the type of the wine.Finally the Fédération claims that Article 8 of the Code du vin does not constitute a quantitative restriction on imports from abroad. The contents of this provision cannot constitute an illegal restriction when they are in accordance with a Community objective which has been expressly stated. Then again, the very aim of Article 8 is in principle qualitative and cannot therefore be alleged to have quantitative effects short of acknowledging, paradoxically, that adulterated wine should also benefit from Community protection.Moreover the action of the Service français de la répression des fraudes is in accordance with national public policy. Over-alcoholization by chaptalization may occur at any time during transport or distribution and there is no reason why products from abroad should escape fraudulent practices.The Fédération adds that the necessary harmonization of Community legislation on the prevention of fraudulent practices will of necessity have to be based on a rule to detect over-alcoholization which very closely corresponds to that in Article 8 of the Code du vin because at present, there are no other valid procedures.The Fédération suggests to the Court that it should give the following answers to the questions put by the Cour d'appel, Aix- en-Provence :1. Article 8 of the Code du vin which seeks to determine that the product has been the subject of a fraudulent practice in the course of its making, regardless of the analysis of the substances of which it is composed, concerns a subject which has not yet been dealt with by Community law but corresponds with an objective laid down by the Community.2. Article 8 of the French Code du vin is applicable to intra-Community trade and does not per se produce effects equivalent to quantitative restrictions.’
4.Observations of the French Government
As regards the first question, the French Government points out that the Community regulations have provided that table wines must comply with certain standards. An analysis of these regulations reveals, however, that these standards, in particular those laid down under Item 10 of Annex II to Regulation No 816/70, are not exhaustive and that the Community is taking action by stages to determine the distinguishing features of wines allowed for direct human consumption.In the opinion of the French Government, taking progressive action necessarily involves the retention of special provisions of national law until Community law replaces them. Article 28 a of Regulation No 816/70 is explicit in this connexion.Moreover, the French Government stresses that the limits set by Article 8 of the Code du Vin concerning the alcohol/dry extract ratio are not a rule of analysis but the expression of an oenological rule the results of which enable it to be determined whether the provisions as to enrichment have been complied with.Therefore the Government concludes that it is not sufficient for a wine only to answer to the definition of table wine given in Item 10 of Annex II to Regulation No 816/70 in order to circulate freely within the Community but that it must in addition satisfy all the conditions laid down by Community regulations and by provisions of national law which have not been repealed, and that the methods of control are the responsibility of the national administrative authorities.In this connexion it recalls that Article 39 a of Regulation No 816/70 and Article 13 of Regulation No 817/70, Article 9 of Regulation No 1594/70 and Article 4 of Regulation No 1618/70 impose upon the Member States the obligation to adopt all appropriate measures to ensure the application of the Community regulations.With regard to the provisions of Regulation No 1539/71, the French Government observes that the title thereof refers to ‘methods for analysis’ (‘des méthodes d'analyse’) and therefore does not lay down all the methods of analysis. The regulation only lays down methods of analysis to ascertain the elements which are capable of being adopted in application of Article 11 of Regulation No 817/70 and in particular of enabling quality wines produced in specified regions to be recognized.Finally, the French Government stresses that there have as yet been no provisions of Community law on the investigation of fraudulent practices and adulteration except to call upon the Member States to adopt all measures to ensure compliance with Community rules.As regards the second question, the French Government recalls that French law makes no distinction between French products and products from abroad. The Government stresses that fraudulent over-alcoholization may occur at any stage from the production to the marketing of the product even when it is circulating with an accompanying certificate or document. Consequently, it is important to ensure at all times that the product complies with the specifications of the regulations which are applicable thereto. To subject only French wines to the oenological rule in question would moreover lead to a discriminatory system incompatible with the principles of the EEC Treaty.The national courts have, besides, applied the provisions of Article 8 of the Code du vin both to French wines and foreign wines.The French Government concludes therefore that in the absence of harmonization of methods of keeping a check by analysis on over-alcoholization of wines, it falls to the Member States to apply their national law to the products which circulate within their territories, even under the rules for reference laid down by Community law.
5.Observations of the Government of the Italian Republic
The Italian Government recalls that in the first question the court referring the matter raises a problem concerning the material properties required of table wines produced within the Community.The Italian Government claims that a complete common organization of the market in wine was established from 1 June 1970. A common organization of this type presupposes, inter alia, as the twelfth recital of Regulation No 816/70 states, a precise definition of the products which the regulations concern.This definition appears in Annex II to the abovementioned regulation, whilst rules concerning production and for controlling planting and those concerning oenological processes and conditions for release to the market are the subject of Tides III and IV of the same regulation.In these circumstances, there can be no doubt that when a table wine produced in the Community satisfies the conditions laid down by the provisions of Community law, it must be able to circulate freely within the Community. If not, the very existence of the common organization of the market is compromised.It follows that as regards the material properties required, the question calls for an answer in the affirmative to the effect that in order to warrant the description ‘table wine’ and to be able to circulate freely in the Community, a wine need only satisfy the conditions laid down by Community regulations.In order to answer the second question, the Italian Government first examines the French rules in the field in question. In its opinion, the presumption of over-alcoholization is a measure for checking the existence of certain material properties which wine must possess. It is thus concerned not with specifying these conditions but checking that they exist.In its opinion, an examination of the provisions of Community law reveals that the task of checking that the material properties of the wine are present is left to Member States, with some exceptions. In this connexion, it refers to Article 39a of Regulation No 816/70 and to Article 9 of Regulation No 1594/70.Therefore the Italian Government claims that Member States are still free to undertake checks intended to ensure that the Community rules are observed, so that where the national court considers that the presumption of over-alcoholization constitutes a similar check, it is compatible with the system of Community law to keep it in force.However, according to the Italian Government, Community regulations, in particular Regulation No 1539/71, do not allow a Member State to adopt the 100o method of analysis for the application of the presumption of the addition of alcohol. This conclusion follows from the very grounds upon which the regulation is based, and especially the third recital thereof (‘… consequently, these methods should be compulsory for all commercial transactions and all verification procedures’). These grounds make it mandatory to consider the regulation as also applicable to the methods of analysis which are necessary to verify the existence of the material properties wich are required by the Community regulations in respect of the product in question. This view is supported by the provisions of Article 1 of the regulation itself, since Regulation No 816/70 includes Article 39a which imposes upon Member States the obligation to take all appropriate measures to verify compliance with the provisions of Community law. Moreover, if a different view were taken, the aim of the common organization of the market would be jeopardized since a product which was regarded in one country and according to a certain method of analysis as a table wine fulfilling the required conditions might not be regarded as such in another country which had adopted a different method of analysis.
6.Observations of the Commission
In the part of its observations headed ‘Facts’, the Commission relies upon some circumstances which influence the values upon which the alcohol/dry extract ratio is based.It recalls that when white wine is produced, the stalks, pips and grape skins are generally removed from the grape must immediately. (However, in Italy sometimes white wine is left to steep in contact with these solid parts). On the other hand, when red wine is produced, the grape must normally remains in contact with these solid parts. Therefore the dry extract of red wine tends to reach higher levels and consequently the alcohol/dry extract ratio is smaller. But even comparing one red wine with another the dry extract is greater the longer the period of steepage. The length of time, which varies according to local conditions and traditions, shows a general tendency to be reduced. The geographical region in which vinegrowing is carried on may also have a decisive influence upon the level of the extract In fact, this extract includes fixed acids which are more abundant the more northerly the vines grow and which on the other hand are very scant in wines from Apulia, Sicily and most especially from Sardinia.However, the Commission recalls that the possibility of rebutting the presumption enables it to be taken into consideration that a wine which is perfectly wholesome may, in spite of everything, show an alcohol/dry extract ratio in excess of the upper limit for many reasons, and in this connexion it refers to two French circulars of 2 March 1965 and 25 March 1974. The first one graduated the limit of the alcohol/extract ratio according to the permanganate measurement in order to take account of the difference in dry extract which the variations in the method of wine-making entail. The second took account of the shortness of the period for making certain red wines of the 1973 vintage.The Commission begins the discussion of the first question by examining the Community regulations in the wine sector and in particular the many provisions fixing the minimum standards of quality for a wine to come within the category of table wine, without which it may not be offered for human consumption. It recalls that other provisions of Regulation No 816/70 control certain oenological processes or the maximum percentage of certain substances. If these provisions are infringed the wine may not be offered or disposed of for direct human consumption even if it comes within the category of table wine, and this is now stated expressly by Article 28 a of Regulation No 816/70 which was introduced by Regulation No 2680/72. Products which may not be offered for direct human consumption are not, however, in the Commission's opinion, prevented from circulating within the Community.Moreover, the Commission recalls that under Article 29 of Regulation No 816/70 products in the wine sector may not circulate within the Community unless they are accompanied by a document. Regulation No 1769/72 which introduced this document has only been applied since 1 April 1972. During the previous period, a provisional state of affairs existed, governed by Regulation No 1022/70, where an accompanying certificate was required only for trade between Member States.The Commission wonders, in view of these regulations, what room still exists for the application of national legislation and considers that the question calls for a different answer according to the circumstances.As to the designation table wine, the Commission claims that the answer ought to be that this designation is exclusively regulated by Community law.As regards accompanying documents, it claims that Community regulations do not mean that wines accompanied by the Community document are exempt from all control. On the contrary, the accompanying document is intended to facilitate checking procedures which aim in particular to check that the product has not been illegally tampered with in transit However, if the checking procedure were to make it possible to ascertain, for example, that the wine could not be offered for direct human consumption, the Member State still could not prohibit the product in question from entering its territory. On that basis, the Commission considers that the Court should say in answer to the Cour d'appel, Aix- en-Provence, that in trade between Member States, and from 1 April 1973 also in trade within Member States, the latter may not make the movement of table wines subject to requirements other than those laid down by Community law.As regards oenological processes and rules of analysis, the Commission considers that the Court's reply should be that at the present stage of Community rules, Member States may make the offer or disposal of table wines for direct human consumption within their territory subject to compliance with oenological processes and rules of analysis other than those laid down by Community regulations, provided that the prohibition on measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions referred to in Article 31 of Regulation No 816/70 is observed.As regards oenological processes, this result is clearly confirmed by the wording of Article 28a of Regulation No 816/70 which was introduced by Regulation No 2680/72.In the Commission's opinion, the second question poses the problem to what extent the Member States may apply provisions of national law to verify and enforce compliance with the Community provisions concerning oenological processes.The Commission's conclusion is that Member States not only may but must take all appropriate measures to ensure that the provisions of Community law are observed. In this connexion it refers to Article 9 of Regulation No 1594/70 and to Article 39a of Regulation No 816/70.In this respect the Commission observes that the provisions of Community law on the harmonization of verification procedures which have been adopted up to the present are not exhaustive and that none of the provisions of the Community rules prevents the application of the presumption of over-alcoholization which is based on the alcohol/dry extract ratio.However, it adds that the action of the Member States conflicts with the limit which the prohibition on measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports constitutes. If the controls imposed by a Member State on the products of other Member States were carried out more rigorously than on home-manufactured products, this would be such a measure.In the Commission's opinion it is impossible to raise the objection to this answer that the presumption in question causes the Community rules on the enrichment of wine to be replaced by the mere conformity of the results of the chemical analysis with the values laid down by national legislation. This objection would only be well founded if the presumption were irrebuttable. On the other hand, although it is fully possible to give evidence in rebuttal, the presumption in question must be considered as a true method of verification.Moreover, a distinction must be made between the question of the permissibility of the presumption in question in the abstract and the permissiblity of the determination in concreto of the values which give rise to the presumption. To fix values for the alcohol/extract ratio which are valid for all Community wines and which penalize wines from other Member States by contrast with home-produced wines is, for example, a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports. Although the Commission cannot within the context of these proceedings commit itself as to whether the values laid down in French law are fair in respect of all Community wines, there is nothing in its opinion to make it believe a priori that these values penalize wines from other Member States.Then the Commission dismisses another objection which may be made to the conclusion set out above. The presumption of over-alcoholization is not in conflict with the opportunities of enriching wine legally because simple mathematical operations are sufficient for the person concerned to show that the enrichment is legal, if such is really the case.Finally the Commission points out that the effect which Community law has of repealing contrary provisions of national law consists essentially in rendering inapplicable provisions of national law to the extent to which their contents are contrary to the contents of the provisions of Community law. Indeed, a Member State may and sometimes must go further than this and formally repeal provisions of national law. But repealing provisions in this way is then the action of the Member State. In this case, although it is true that Article 25 of Regulation No 816/70 by its wording precludes the applicability in a Member State of a rule the content of which is similar to that of Article 2 of the Law of 24 July 1894, this article, on the other hand, has no effect on the presumption of over-alcoholization unless it is proved that a contradiction exists between these two rules.The Commission concludes by proposing that the Court should give the following answer to this question:‘In view of Articles 18, 19, 22 and 39a of Regulation No 816/70 and Article 9 of Regulation No 1594/70, a Member State may apply to table wines a presumption of over-alcoholization based on the alcohol/reduced extract ratio even if they come from another Member State, provided that the presumption is worded and applied so as not to put wines from other Member States at a disadvantage in relation to home-produced wines and provided that the persons concerned are allowed to adduce evidence in rebuttal.’Even though the Cour d'appel, Aix- en-Provence, did not ask questions concerning the method of analysis of the dry extract, the Commission recalls that this question was asked in Case 89/74 (Arnaud) v Procureur général)In this connexion the Commission merely claims, as regards the facts, that it is not possible to transpose the alcohol/extract ratio based on one of the two methods of analysis (100o and densimetric methods) into values calculated on the basis of the other, and, as regards the law, that Regulation No 1539/71 does not allow Member States to lay down any other method of analysis of the dry extract than the densimetric method.At the oral proceedings on 11 June 1975 Mr Margnat, represented by Mr J. Imbach, Mr Seneclauze, represented by Mr P. Guerre, the Fédération nationale des producteurs de vins de table, represented by Mr B. Celice, the French Government, represented by Mr R. Tinlot, Chief Inspector in the Serice de la répression des fraudes and the Commission, represented by its Legal Adviser, Mr G. Marenco, presented oral argument.During this hearing the parties adduced new arguments which are summarized below:The French Government denies that it had let the rule of presumption fall into disuse and claims that from 1965 to 1974, 54 cases of offences concerning over-alcoholization were brought before the courts, 45 of these cases relating to French wines, 8 to Italian wines and 1 to Spanish wine. Of these 54 cases, 18 were brought before 1970.That Government also denies that the application of the alcohol/dry extract ratio is an obstacle to freedom of trade. It recalls that almost 6 million hectolitres of foreign wine were imported into France in 1973 and the same quantity in 1974. In the second half of 1972, 2·8 million hectolitres of Italian wine were imported into France; of that 2·8 million, 158379 hectolitres were analysed and criminal proceedings were only instituted for exceeding the alcohol/dry extract ratio in respect of 9495 hectolitres.Moreover, the French Government recalls that most of the samples taken from wines imported by the accused in the main actions took place before 1 September 1971, the date when Regulation No 1539/71 came into operation, which is perhaps the reason why the Cour d'appel, Aix- en-Provence has not asked any questions concerning that regulation.Messrs Margnat and Seneclauze stress in particular that the rule of presumption is not a mere rule of verification. Since the type of wine must, according to national legislation, depend on an alcohol/dry extract ratio, it is necessarily the very definition of the wine which is at issue. They claim that the difficulties raised for those concerned by the need to supply evidence in rebuttal are so great that this is in fact an irrebuttable presumption.The Commission claims that the 100o method is not the only method by which a ratio showing over-alcoholization may be determined. It is true that the present ratio in France is determined by the 100o method and it is true that at present there is no alcohol/dry extract ratio based on another method. But, in the Commission's opinion, it is certain that on the basis of experiments based only on the densimetric method a new alcohol/dry extract ratio could be formulated.The French Government replies that it might be possible to create a new rule of presumption based on the alcohol/total reduced dry extract ratio, the total dry extract being calculated by densimeter and making the reduction in proportion to this total dry extract calculated by densimeter. But to work out such a new rule requires a great deal of effort and time. Several years at least would be needed to obtain enough experience.The Advocate-General delivered his opinion at the hearing on 8 July 1975.
Law
Costs
Operative part
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.