265/86 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber)31 May 1988^noteIn Case 265/86REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Verwaltungsgericht, Trier for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court betweenEgon MüllerandLandwirtschaftskammer Rheinland-PfalzTHE COURT (Fourth Chamber)composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President of Chamber, T. Koopmans and C. Kakouris, Judges,Advocate General: J. L. Cruz VilaçaRegistrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Administratorafter considering the observations submitted on behalf of:— Egon Müller, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, by Arthur Schott, Rechtsanwalt, in the oral procedure,— the Commission of the European Communities, by Peter Karpenstein, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, in the written and oral procedure, assisted by Alfred Reichardt, as expert, in the oral procedure,having regard to the Report for the Hearing and further to the hearing on 19 January 1988,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 8 March 1988,gives the following

Judgment

1By an order of 9 September 1986, which was received at the Court on 24 October 1986, the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), Trier referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Article 13 (4) of Council Regulation No 347/79 of 5 February 1979 on general rules for the classification of vine varieties (Official Journal 1979, L 54, p. 75) and the first subparagraph of Article 6 (1) (a) and the first subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of Council Regulation No 338/79 of 5 February 1979 laying down special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions (Official Journal 1979, L 54, p. 48).

2The question was raised in proceedings brought by Egon Müller against the Landwirtschaftskammer (Chamber of Agriculture) Rheinland-Pfalz regarding the possibility of classifying as quality wine produced in specified regions (hereinafter referred to as ‘quality wines psr’) a wine produced from a vine variety deriving from an interspecific crossing of vine varieties, for which cultivation suitability trials are in progress.

3It appears from the documents before the Court that during 1972 and 1973 the Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Weinbau und Umweltschutz (Ministry of Agriculture, Winegrowing and the Environment) of Rheinland-Pfalz had, on the basis of the Community rules then in force, approved Mr Müller's contracts relating to cultivation trials for a vine variety deriving from an interspecific crossing of varieties of the species Vitis vinifera and Vitis riparia.

4Until 1984, the wines produced from that variety, within the authorized blending limits, were recognized in Rheinland-Pfalz as quality wines psr. Nevertheless, the next year, the Chamber of Agriculture of Rheinland-Pfalz refused to recognize as a quality wine psr a type of wine of which 10% came from the variety in question on the ground that, in accordance with instructions from the Ministry, wines from vine varieties deriving from an interspecific crossing could not, as from the 1985 harvest, be given an official control number as quality wines psr.

5After making an objection which was not upheld, Mr Müller brought an action before the Verwaltungsgericht, Trier. That court, considering that the judgment to be given depended upon the interpretation of certain provisions of the applicable Community legislation, stayed the proceedings and submitted the following question to the Court:‘On the basis of the provision in Article 13 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 347/79, may wine from vine varieties undergoing cultivation suitability trials, scientific research or selection or crossing experiments be recognized as quality wine produced in a specified region or would that be contrary to the first sentence of Article 6 (1) (a) in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 338/79?’

6Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts, the relevant Community provisions, the course of the procedure and the observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.

7According to Article 31 of Council Regulation No 337/79 of 5 February 1979 on the common organization of the market in wine (Official Journal 1979, L 57, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation No 454/80 of 18 February 1980 (Official Journal 1980, L 57, p. 7), the general rules for the classification of vine varieties are to be adopted by the Council and are to provide for the classification of vines into ‘recommended’ varieties, ‘authorized’ varieties and ‘temporarily authorized’ varieties.

8The same article further states that those three categories of varieties are the only ones which may be planted in the Community, but nevertheless provides that a Member State may derogate from that restriction for the purpose of cultivation trials for a new variety.

9Pursuant to Article 49 (1) of the same regulation, both table wines and quality wines, and also grape must and liqueur wines, must be produced only from varieties ‘recommended’ or ‘authorized’ under Article 31, unless otherwise decided by the Council.

10Article 6 et seq. of the implementing regulation, Regulation No 347/79, mentioned above, lay down the criteria for the classification of vine varieties in one or other of the three abovementioned categories, essentially by reference to the quality of the wine produced.

11Article 13 (1) and (2) of the same regulation prohibit the planting of vine varieties not listed in the classification. Member States are, however, authorized to permit derogations from that prohibition for the purpose, inter alia, of investigating the suitability for cultivation of a vine variety not listed in the classification.

12The regulation itself provides for an exception to that rule, in Article 13 (4), which is worded as follows:‘Products derived from a vine variety undergoing cultivation suitability trials, scientific research or selection or crossing experiments, as referred to in paragraph 2, shall be treated as products obtained from authorized vine varieties’.

13It should also be noted that quality wines psr are covered by specific provisions of the abovementioned Regulation No 338/79.

14Article 4 of that regulation lays down the following conditions for the classification of a wine as a quality wine psr: (a) the vine varieties suitable for producing quality wines psr produced in the territory of each Member State must be included on a list to be drawn up by the Member State; (b) they must not be of any species other than Vitis vini/era, and (c) they must belong to the ‘recommended’ or ‘authorized’ categories mentioned above.

15Article 6 (1) (a) of the same regulation provides that quality wines psr may be obtained only from grapes of vine varieties which appear on the abovementioned list to be drawn up by each Member State and are harvested within the specified region.

16In order to answer the question submitted by the national court, it is necessary to determine first whether the latter provisions have been changed by virtue of the exception made by Article 13 (4) of Regulation No 347/79, according to which products from vine varieties undergoing, inter alia, cultivation tests are regarded as equivalent to products from vine varieties of the ‘authorized’ category.

17The plaintiff in the main proceedings argued before the national court that the equivalence provided for by that article must be regarded as total, so that products from a vine variety undergoing cultivation tests must be regarded as suitable for the production of a quality wine psr.

18With regard to that argument it should be observed that the fact that products from a vine variety undergoing, inter alia, cultivation trials are treated as equivalent to products from ‘authorized’ vine varieties covers only one of the three conditions laid down by Article 4 of Regulation No 338/79 for a wine to be classified as a quality wine psr, namely the requirement that quality wines psr may be produced only from vines of the ‘recommended’ or ‘authorized’ categories. However, the other two conditions, in particular the fact that only varieties of the species Vitis vinifera may be included in the list referred to in the abovementioned provision, cannot be regarded as satisfied by that assimilation which, therefore, is not in itself sufficient to enable the wine produced to be described as quality wine psr.

19The plaintiff in the main proceedings claims that the derogating provision in question, Article 13 (4), would be of no practical use if there were no possibility of producing a quality wine psr from grapes of a vine variety undergoing cultivation tests.

20That argument is unfounded. The purpose of Article 13 (4) of Regulation No 347/79 is, by way of derogation from the general provisions concerning the planting and classification of vine varieties, to enable the products listed in Article 49 (1) of Regulation No 337/79, namely table wines, quality wines, grape musts and liqueur wines, to be produced from grapes of vine varieties undergoing, inter alia, cultivation tests. Only quality wines psr are not covered by that derogation, since they are subject to the precise special conditions laid down in Regulation No 338/79, which deals specifically with such wines.

21Finally, contrary to the contention of the plaintiff in the main proceedings, no argument precluding that interpretation can be derived from the fact that Regulation No 347/79, which contains the derogating provision in question (Article 13 (4)), was adopted after Regulation No 338/79.

22It must therefore be stated in reply to the question submitted by the national court that the combined provisions of Article 13 (4) of Council Regulation No 347/79 and the first subparagraph of Article 6 (1) (a) and the first subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of Council Regulation No 338/79 must be interpreted as meaning that wine produced from vine varieties not belonging to the species Vais viniferas which are undergoing cultivation suitability trials, scientific research or selection or crossing experiments cannot be described as quality wine produced in a specified region.

Costs

23The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),in answer to the questions submitted to it by the Verwaltungsgericht, Trier by order of 9 September 1986, hereby rules: The combined provisions of Article 13 (4) of Council Regulation No 347/79 and the first subparagraph of Article 6 (1) (a) and the first subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of Council Regulation No 338/79 must be interpreted as meaning that wine produced from vine varieties not belonging to the species Vitis viníferas which are undergoing cultivation suitability trials, scientific research or selection or crossing experiments cannot be described as quality wine produced in a specified region.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 31 May 1988.