Prefetto di Ravenna v Attilio Contarini (C-283/91)

law://eu/cjeu/1991/c-283-91@2026-11-15

Contents

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber)3 December 1992^noteIn Case C-283/91,REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court betweenPrefetto di RavennaandAttilio Contarmi,THE COURT (First Chamber),composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President of the Chamber, R. Joliét and D. A. O. Edward, Judges,Advocate General: W. Van Gerven,Registrar: J.-G. Giraud,after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:— Attilio Contarmi, by Albamaria dalle Rovere Baccarini, of the Bologna Bar,— the Italian Government, by Professor Luigi Ferrari Bravo, Head of the Department for Legal Affairs of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Ivo M. Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato,— the Commission of the European Communities, by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 8 October 1992,gives the following

Judgment

1By order of 21 May 1991, which was received at the Court on 6 November 1991, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 1153/75 of the Commission of 30 April 1975 prescribing the form of the accompanying documents for wine products and specifying the obligations of wine producers and traders other than retailers (OJ 1975 L 113, p. 1).

2The question arose in proceedings between Attilio Contarmi and the Prefetto di Ravenna concerning two accompanying documents for two consignments of new wine still in fermentation.

3It appears from the order for reference that on 13 October 1983 Mr Contarini drew up two accompanying documents for 100 and 20 hectolitres respectively of new wine in fermentation. On 24 April 1986, the Prefetto di Ravenna imposed an administrative penalty on Mr Contarini on the ground that he had omitted to fill out column 14 of those two accompanying documents, contrary to Article 9 of the regulation.

4Article 9 reads as follows:1. For:— grape must,— grape must in fermentation and— new wine still in fermentation,the figure 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 shall be entered in column 14 of the accompanying document to indicate:0 : that the product has not been enriched, acidified or deacidified;1: that the product may not be enriched, acidified or deacidified;2: that the product may be enriched;3: that the product may be acidified;4: that the product may be deacidified.Where the product may be enriched, acidified or deacidified, or in the case of wine suitable for yielding table wine, the winegrowing zone where the fresh grapes used were harvested shall be entered in column 15.2. For table wine, the figure 5 shall be entered in column 14 of the accompanying document to indicate that the wine has been sweetened.3. For all products other than those specified in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, the figure 6, 7, 8 or 9 shall be entered in column 14 of the accompanying document to indicate:6: that the product has not been enriched, acidified or deacidified;7: that the product has been enriched;8: that the product has been acidified;9: the product has been deacidified.Entiy of these particulars shall not be compulsory.’

5Mr Contarmi successfully appealed against that penalty to the Pretore di Lugo (Magistrate, Lugo), who held that, under the terms of Article 9(3) of the regulation, it was not compulsory to fill out column 14 of the accompanying documents.

6The Prefetto di Ravenna appealed on a point of law against the judgment of the Pretore di Lugo. He argued that the Pretore had wrongly held that the provision of Article 9(3) of the regulation under which it was not compulsory to fill out column 14 of the accompanying documents referred to all the products mentioned in that article.

7In those circumstances, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione decided to suspend the proceedings pending a preliminary ruling from the Court on the following question:‘Does the last sentence of Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1153/75 (“entry of these particulars shall not be compulsory”) refer to all the provisions of Article 9 (as was held in the contested judgment) or only to the provisions of paragraph 3 thereof (as the appellant maintains)?’

8Reference is made to the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur for a fuller account of facts of the case, the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court.

9It should be observed in limine that, following the events which gave rise to the main proceedings, the Commission adopted Regulation (EEC) No 418/86 of 18 February 1986 amending various regulations concerning wine as a result of the accession of Spain and Portugal (OJ 1986 L 48, p. 6), which added a paragraph 4 to Article 9 of Regulation No 1153/75. Whilst this has no bearing on the interpretation of the version of Regulation No 1153/75 which was in force at the material time, it should, however, be noted that phrase ‘the last sentence of Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1153/75’ in the national court's question refers to the original version published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 30 April 1975, that is to say, the version in force before the amendment made by Regulation No 418/86. By the same token, any reference to the regulation in the remainder of this judgment is to the original 1975 version.

10According to the case-file, Mr Contarini and the Pretore di Lugo take the view that the last sentence of Article 9 of the regulation, ‘Entry of these particulars shall not be compulsory’, refers to all the products mentioned in that article and thus relieves the producer in every case of the obligation to fill out column 14 of the accompanying document. In contrast, the Italian Government and the Commission, as well as the Prefetto di Ravenna, consider that the sentence refers only to the products mentioned in Article 9(3).

11It should be noted that the very structure of Article 9 shows that, as the Commission has rightly argued, paragraph 1 relates to grape must, grape must in fermentation and new wine still in fermentation, whilst, for their part, paragraphs 2 and 3 cover respectively table wine and products other than those specified in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1. The sentence ‘Entry of these particulars shall not be compulsory’ at the end of Article 9 relates solely to the products referred to in paragraph 3. If the Community legislature had intended that sentence to refer to all the products covered by Article 9 of the regulation, it would have specified this in a separate paragraph.

12Furthermore, as the Commission and the Italian Government have stated, that difference in treatment is consistent with the aim of the regulation. The entries set out in Article 9 are designed to ensure that products do not undergo the same processing twice over. That risk is especially great in the case of the non-finished products listed in paragraph 1 of Article 9. It therefore made sense to stipulate that entries relating to processing were compulsory for non-finished products, but optional for finished products.

13Lastly, it is stated in the fifth recital in the preamble to the regulation that ‘the [purpose] of accompanying documents should be to provide the consignee with as much information as possible about the product he is receiving’ and that ‘to this end, the products transported must be described on the documents in the clearest possible way’.

14It follows that an interpretation of Article 9 of the regulation which had the effect in all cases of exempting a producer from the obligation of filling out column 14 of the accompanying document would detract from the utility of that document and hence from its purpose as specified in the fifth recital in the preamble to the regulation.

15Accordingly, the answer to be given to the question referred by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione must be that the last sentence of Article 9 of Regulation No 1153/75, in its original version published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 30 April 1975, must be interpreted as referring solely to the provisions of paragraph 3 of that article.

Costs

16The costs incurred by the Italian Government and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, 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 referred to it by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione by order of 21 May 1991, hereby rules: The last sentence of Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 1153/75 of the Commission of 30 April 1975 prescribing the form of the accompanying documents for wine products and specifying the obligations of wine producers and traders other than retailers, in its original version published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 30 April 1975, refers solely to the provisions of paragraph 3 of that article.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 3 December 1992.

Prefetto di Ravenna v Attilio Contarini (C-283/91)

Prefetto di Ravenna v Attilio Contarini (C-283/91)

Judgment

Costs

Operative part

Connections

Key facts

History · 1 version

Judgment

Costs

Operative part