Judgment_paragraph 2. · Criminal proceedings against Karl Prantl (16/83)

2.The disputed provision does not fall within the exceptions provided by Article 36The Government of the Italian Republic is of the view that despite the vagueness of the order for reference, the national court probably intended to refer to consumer protection and fair trading.However, in its opinion, those exceptions cannot be relied upon in the present case.(a) In the first place it is agreed that in Italy, and above all in Trentino Alto Adige, the bottle known as a “Bocksbeutel” has a tradition going back for more than a century.As the Court held in its judgment of 15 March 1983 (Case 319/81, Commission and the United Kingdom v Italy, [1983] ECR 601), there is an obligation not to distort markets and it is not, therefore, possible to justify the measure in question solely by reference to the German consumer.(b) Secondly, in the opinion of the Government of the Italian Republic, even if the shape of the bottle may help the consumer to identify the type of wine which is contained in it, it is, above all, the information shown on the label of the bottle which is decisive in that respect. From that point of view there are at present in existence detailed Community rules relating to the description and presentation of wines and grape musts whose purpose is, in particular, to enable the various types of wine to be correctly and swiftly identified by the consumer and to avoid any confusion on his part.Thus, when a wine is produced in the Community in accordance with those rules, it should be able to circulate freely in all the Member States without the possibility of that freedom of movement being hindered by national measures relating to the determination of the shape of the bottle.Support is lent to that argument by Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 997/81 which protects the use of the bottle known as the “flûte d'Alsace” “for wines made from grapes harvested on French territory [and] restricted to [certain] quality wines psr”, but which quite clearly does not exclude the use of that type of bottle for the presentation of wines produced in other Member States.The Government of the Italian Republic concludes that according to the Community rules, it is above all compliance with the requirements as to the information and details to be shown on the label which enables the consumer to be protected and ensures fair trading. It is not therefore possible to permit other methods of protection unilaterally laid down by Member States, even a national measure which is less “disproportionate” than that provided by Paragraph 17 of the German Wein-Verordnung.For the above reasons the Government of the Italian Republic suggests that the questions submitted by the court making the reference be answered as follows:“A national measure of the type laid down in Paragraph 17 of the Wcin-Verordnung constitutes a measure having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction prohibited by Article 30 of the EEC Treaty; such a measure may be justified neither by Article 36 of the Treaty nor by reasons associated with fair trading or with consumer protection.”

Criminal proceedings against Karl Prantl (16/83)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version