law://eu/cjeu/1977/c-80-77/hd_1_1_2_2_2@2026-11-15The Commission considers that even if Article 31 (2) were lawful in origin, it was in any event no longer applicable in September 1975, since by that time all the administrative mechanisms necessary for the management of the market in wine had long been set up in all the Member States.(a) Contrary to the Council's opinion, the Council did not have to make an express finding that the condition ‘so long as all the administrative mechanisms necessary for the management have not been set up in all the Member States’ was satisfied. This is a question of fan, which, in the event of dispute, is for a court to resolve. The Council moreover had included in the minutes of its meeting on 27 and 28 April 1970 a statement that there should be a finding, not by the Council, but by the Commission, which should make a report to the Council. Although it appears from the report submitted by the Commission to the Council on 27 July 1971, that the condition had not then been satisfied, it is apparent on the other hand from the reports submitted in January and February 1972 by the Working Party on Wine and by the Special Committee on Agriculture, both under the Council, that the necessary administrative mechanisms had in the meantime been set up, that Regulation No 816/70 was in operation in every respect and that as a result, as the Working Party expressly confirmed that ‘the provisions of Article 31 (2) have become redundant’. This opinion was considered and confirmed by the Special Committee on Agriculture in a report to the Council. The fact that neither the Council nor the Commission returned to the question after 1972, far from justifying any argument that all the administrative mechanisms had not been set up in all Member States, shows that it was generally considered that the Commission's task had been accomplished.(b) Article 31 (2) lapsed and could not subsequently be resuscitated once the condition for its application no longer existed. Its transitional nature precluded any intermittent application to meet shortcomings appearing after the administrative mechanisms had once been set up in all the said States. The way to deal with such shortcomings was by the procedures provided for in Articles 169 and 170 of the Treaty. The Commission adds that even assuming that the safeguard clause could be resuscitated if there were subsequently need, it should be borne in mind that the application of Article 31 (2) of Regulation No 816/70 requires a general assessment and not an analysis of the administrative mechanisms set up. Article 31 (2) applies only in the absence and not the malfunctioning of the administrative mechanisms. Although this makes it unnecessary to consider whether the administrative mechanisms functioned well or not so well in Italy, the Commission observes nevertheless that to appreciate how only those administrative mechanisms (stocking and distillation) which were criticized at the time by the French Government functioned in Italy, it is necessary to consider what quantities have been stocked and distilled rather than the periods within which payments were made.As regards the quantities stocked the figures for the 1974/1975 marketing year are for Italy and France respectively:| Italy | FranceShort-term storage contracts | HI 4276000 | HI 6435000Long-term storage contracts | HI 1900000 | HI 5841000| HI 6176000 | HI 12276000The difference between the two figures results from the greater credit and guarantee facilities afforded to the French wine growers.As regards the quantities distilled the figures for the whole of the 1973/74 and 1974/75 (until 31 July 1975) marketing years are some HI 6800000 for Italy as against some HI 14000000 for France, the latter figure including, according to the Commission, HI 3000000 distilled as a result of aid granted in disregard of Community law.These figures show that the intervention measures have affected large quantities in Italy and they indicate a correct and satisfactory functioning of the administrative mechanisms necessary for the management of the market.As regards the harvest declarations the difference between the provisional and final figures is, in respect of the 1974 harvest in Italy, only 0.8 % whereas in France it was 1.9 %.As for the checks on movement of wine the Member States had adopted all the measures for implementation of the Community rules, drawing up accompanying documents and determining the obligations of wine producers and traders other than retailers in the wine sector (Regulation (EEC) No 1769/72, Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (III), p. 909, replaced by Regulation (EEC) No 1153/75, Official Journal L 113 of 1 May 1975, p. 1). The necessary particulars for the application of these rules were notified by the Member States to the Commission.Finally, as regards wine deliveries, governed by Regulation (EEC) 1877/74 (Official Journal L 198 of 20 July 1974, p. 3) which provides that producers may, in total or partial discharge of the obligation to distil, produce or have produced potable spirits of grape marcs or potable spirits of wine from their own products, the Commission observes that the quantities of alcohol produced in Italy as wine deliveries have been duly notified to the Commission and that the latter has no information indicating failure in checking the wine deliveries in Italy.The Commission suggests that in the event of the first question put by the national court being answered in the affirmative, the Court of Justice should answer the second question in the negative.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.