C-10/75

JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1975 — JOINED CASES 10 TO 14/75

In Joined Cases 10 to 14/75

Reference 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-Provence

and

Fédération nationale des producteurs de vins de table et vins de pays, Paris, plaintiff claiming damages,

composed 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. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

PROCUREUR AIX-EN-PROVENCE v LAHAILLE

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1975 — JOINED CASES 10 TO 14/75

The non that the results obtained vary according volatile substances make up the 'dry to the different methods. (The dry extract extract' of the wine. obtained by the 100° method is less than that obtained by the two other methods Fortification and chaptalization create an because evaporation at 100° causes some imbalance between the constituents of particles of the unresistant constituents the wine. They have the effect of to disperse into the atmosphere.) increasing the quantity of alcohol without however increasing the quantity The 100° method was laid down in of most of the other substances. France for establishing the alcohol/dry Therefore the dry extract does not extract ratio by Order of 18 January 1907 increase in the same proportion as the and set out in detail in an Order of 22

5. In order to apply this presumption it is necessary to determine the method to Heading 3 of the Annex provides that: be used to calculate the dry extract.1 The total dry extract shall be measured Several methods of analysis have been by a densimeter and calculated indirectly worked out for the calculation of the dry from the specific gravity of the residue extract One is the '100° method' which without alcohol.' consists in weighing what is left after evaporating the volatile substances in the 6. Messrs Lahaille, Bourgin, Margnat, wine at 100°. Another is the '70° Seneclauze and Cremieux run French vacuum method' which consists in wine-marketing firms.

The reduced extract gives rise to the presumption of is the total reduced dry extract less all the total sugars in over-alcoholization. The accused were excess of 1 gramme, potassium sulphate in excess of 1 prosecuted and acquitted by the Tribunal gramme, mannitol, if any, and all chemical substances which may have been added to the wine'. correctionnel, Marseilles.

The grounds relied upon in support of "Whereas with regard to the common their acquittal were essentialy that the organization of the market in wine, provisions of Regulation (EEC) No Regulation (EEC) No 816/70… defines 1022/70 of the Commission of 29 May in Item 10 of Annex II thereto table 1970 (OJ L 118, p. 20) introducing wine produced in the Community by accompanying certificates for certain reference to vine varieties, alcoholic wines during a transitional period had strength and acidity content; and been complied with, since the producer whereas, although it provides in Article Member State had issued a 'clear 27 (2) (a) thereof that wines falling within certificate' attesting that the wine was that definition may be offered or wholesome and of good merchantable disposed of for direct human con quality. sumption within the Community, it prohibits the addition of alcohol (Article The court stated in particular: 'All the 25) and chaptalization (Articles 18 and considerations analysed above lead this 19); and whereas it subjects the circulation of wines within the court to hold that importing into the national territory wine from Italy which Community to the drawing up of an is duly accompanied by "clear officially checked accompanying docu certificates" and which the accused has ment (Article 29) and prohibits any not examined personally cannot make quantitative restriction or measure having him criminally liable where his intention equivalent effect in the internal trade of to defraud has not been proved in the the Community (Article 31); case in question'.

accordance with Article 177 of the EEC quality and in addition complies with the Treaty: requirements of subparagraph (a) or (b) of — Whether table wines dealt with by Article 27 (2) of the preceding regulation; Regulation (EEC) 816/70 must, in and whereas Article 11 thereof provides order to merit that title and circulate "Without prejudice to the provisions of within the territory of Member States this Regulation, national requirements of the Community, satisfy only the shall apply to the control of the rules of analysis provided for in Item circulation of wines within the territory 10 of Annex II to that Regulation or of a Member State"; in addition national practices and

7. In its orders for reference, the Cour Member State to ensure that the wine d'appel stated inter alia: forming part of intra-Community trade

national law necessarily imposes a severe restriction on the freedom of The parties are invited to provide… Community trade by placing on the more detailed explanations with regard producer the additional obligation, when to the possibility or otherwise of that limit is found to be exceeded in transposing the alcohol/dry extract ratios French territory, of establishing… that obtained by using the densimetric they result exclusively from the method into ratios resulting from the use fermentation of fresh grapes; and of the 100° method' whereas in the framework of intra- Community trade such an obligation is and invited the parties to give their views not in the nature of "a mere national on this question too in their written requirement applying to control of the observations. circulation of wines in the territory of a Member State"...' II — Written observations sub­ 8. The orders for reference were entered mitted to the Court in the Court Register on 3 February 1975. 1. Observations of Mr Margnat (Case 12/75) Mr Margnat, represented by J. Imbach of the Strasbourg Bar, Mr Seneclauze, Mr Margnat first of all examines the represented by P. Guerre of the circumstances in which the problem Marseilles Bar, the Fédération nationale giving rise to the preliminary questions des producteurs de vins de table et vins arose. He claims, inter alia, that to his de pays, represented by B. Celice of the knowledge the presumption of Paris Bar, the French Government, over-alcoholization has not for years represented by R. Pisani, Chief Inspector given rise to legal proceedings within in the Service de la répression des French territory in respect of French fraudes at the Ministry of Agriculture, the wines and that it was only applied Government of the Italian Republic, systematically in connexion with wines represented by Ambassador A. Maresca, from Italy because since 1971, shortly

individual oenological processes may be adopted by the different States, but he But even if it could have been applied, claims that wine from one country in the an expert's report would have been Community which complies with the ordered to enable a person charged with requirements of Regulation No 816/70 such an offence to bring evidence to the and has an accompanying certificate, contrary. Although it is difficult on the cannot be rejected in another State. domestic level to bring evidence to the contrary, it is practically impossible in The aim of the Community rule is, in his respect of wines produced outside opinion, to promote free trade between France, since these have analytical and the Member States in all wines which organoleptic properties different from satisfy the requirements of Regulation those of French wines. Thus the experts No 816/70 in conjunction with Items 7 summoned before the Tribunal and 10 of Annex II. correctionnel, Marseilles, declared that the alcohol/dry extract ratio could have Therefore the Court ought to answer the no meaning of its own when the wines first question to the effect that table came from Community countries since wines, defined according to the rules laid the conditions of their production, the down in Regulation No 816/70, only wine-making processes and their place of have to satisfy the rules for analysis origin were difficult to determine. provided in that Regulation and Item 10 of Annex II thereof regardless of the Then Mr Margnat refers to the actual national practices and regulations of the preamble to Regulation No 816/70 importing State. according to which it is prohibited to introduce any measures contrary to the Then Mr Margnat observes that the common agricultural organization and second question is only the corollary of any measures which might involve the first The question is whether the discrimination. The same regulation presumption of over-alcoholization under prohibits all quantitative restrictions or national law is an obstacle to the free measures having equivalent effect in circulation of wines and therefore a intra-Community trade. But the aim of measure which is prohibited by Article the actions brought against French 31 of Regulation No 816/70. importers when they imported Italian wines into France was the quantitative He considers that the presumption is a restriction of imports of these wines into measure which goes beyond the intended France.

Mr Margnat claims that his analysis is The Court should therefore say in answer supported by Regulation No 1022/70 to this question that table wines need which specifies that the accompanying comply only with the rules of analysis certificate shall be issued by the laid down in Annex II to this Regulation, competent agency of the producer as officially certified by the producer Member State only if this agency has country, and not with national rules, in ascertained that the wine is wholesome order to circulate within the territory of and of good merchantable quality and Member States of the Community. complies, moreover, with the require ments of subparagraph (a) or (b) of As regards the second question, Mr Seneclauze claims that the French rules

States. French oenological experts have shown 2. Observations of Mr Seneclauze (Case that the value of the old alcohol/dry 13/75) extract ratio under the legislation of 1898 could no longer be upheld, and the legal Mr Seneclauze observes first that for each experts in the case before the Tribunal consignment of wines imported from correctionnel, Marseilles, admitted that Italy in 1971, the French customs the alcohol/dry extract ratio should be officials took a sample, had it analysed by interpreted by taking all sorts of factors their laboratory, acknowledged that it into consideration; the three leading complied with Community legislation authorities Jaulme, Portal and Brun have and allowed it to be unloaded, and that it acknowledged that in this case, if the was only some months later after alcohol/dry extract ratio were interpreted demonstrations on the part of French according to the works of Bouvatier and winegrowers had taken place that the Sudraud there was no over-alcoholization French Service des fraudes took samples of the wines in question. from a vat and carried out an analysis of

PROCUREUR AIX-EN-PROVENCE v LAHAILLE

When over- system which has been applied without alcoholization is being investigated, the respite to French vine-growers is 100° method has the advantage of perfectly adapted to the circumstances volatilizing the substances which vary which arise from the EEC Treaty. most from one wine to another. Consequently, the reduced extract laid The Fédération first examines the down in Article 8 of the Code du vin, far contents of the French regulations. In from being a datum inferior to the total particular it observes that it has never extract, constitutes the separate result of a been alleged that the presumption of different form of investigation. over-alcoholization was too oppressive. The very fact that the rule now being For this reason the Fédération strongly contested is of long standing is enough protests against all allegations that the to show, in any case, that it was not rules laid down in Article 8 of the Code adopted in order to block common du vin for the examination of wine market products. should be reviewed in the light of present Community rules. It is useless to allege that the procedure is only valid in respect of French wines. As regards the question of the In fact, Article 8 of the Code du vin was compatibility of Article 8 of the Code du applied by the French administration in vin with Community regulations, the all the North African countries whose Fédération first claims that the wines were of a different composition preventive system laid down in Article 8 and alcoholic strength from those of does not infringe any provisions of wines produced in Metropolitan France. Community law as the system has no equivalent under Community law. The preventive French system is Moreover, no question of compatibility moreover not inflexible. It takes into can arise with regard to provisions which consideration, as attested by recent are in accordance with a Community circulars, special methods of wine

It densimeter method enable more recalls that examination of the reduced complete data on all the constituents of extract and that of the total extract are the wine to be obtained — that is, the not conflicting or even competing

a quantitative restriction on imports from abroad. The contents of this provision As regards the first question, the French cannot constitute an illegal restriction Government points out that the when they are in accordance with a Community regulations have provided Community objective which has been that table wines must comply with expressly stated. Then again, the very aim certain standards. An analysis of these of Article 8 is in principle qualitative and regulations reveals, however, that these cannot therefore be alleged to have standards, in particular those laid down quantitative effects short of acknowl­ under Item 10 of Annex II to Regulation edging, paradoxically, that adulterated No 816/70, are not exhaustive and that wine should also benefit from the Community is taking action by stages Community protection. to determine the distinguishing features of wines allowed for direct human Moreover the action of the Service consumption. français de la répression des fraudes is in accordance with national public policy. In the opinion of the French Over-alcoholization by chaptalization Government, taking progressive action may occur at any time during transport necessarily involves the retention of or distribution and there is no reason special provisions of national law until why products from abroad should escape Community law replaces them. Article fraudulent practices. 28 a of Regulation No 816/70 is explicit in this connexion.

Article 13 of Regulation No 817/70, Article 9 of Regulation No 1594/70 and The French Government concludes Article 4 of Regulation No 1618/70 therefore that in the absence of impose upon the Member States the harmonization of methods of keeping a obligation to adopt all appropriate check by analysis on over-alcoholization measures to ensure the application of the of wines, it falls to the Member States to Community regulations. apply their national law to the products which circulate within their territories, With regard to the provisions of even under the rules for reference laid Regulation No 1539/71, the French down by Community law. Government observes that the title thereof refers to 'methods for analysis' 5. Observations of the Government of ('des méthodes d'analyse") and therefore the Italian Republic does not lay down all the methods of analysis. The regulation only lays down The Italian Government recalls that in methods of analysis to ascertain the the first question the court referring the elements which are capable of being matter raises a problem concerning the adopted in application of Article 11 of material properties required of table Regulation No 817/70 and in particular wines produced within the Community. of enabling quality wines produced in specified regions to be recognized. The Italian Government claims that a complete common organization of the Finally, the French Government stresses market in wine was established from 1 that there have as yet been no provisions June 1970. A common organization of of Community law on the investigation this type presupposes, inter alia, as the of fraudulent practices and adulteration twelfth recital of Regulation No 816/70 except to call upon the Member States to states, a precise definition of the products adopt all measures to ensure compliance which the regulations concern. with Community rules. This definition appears in Annex II to As regards the second question, the the abovementioned regulation, whilst French Government recalls that French rules concerning production and for law makes no distinction between controlling planting and those French products and products from concerning oenological processes and abroad. The Government stresses that conditions for release to the market are fraudulent over-alcoholization may occur the subject of Tides III and IV of the at any stage from the production to the same regulation. marketing of the product even when it is circulating with an accompanying In these circumstances, there can be no certificate or document. Consequently, it doubt that when a table wine produced is important to ensure at all times that in the Community satisfies the the product complies with the conditions laid down by the provisions of specifications of the regulations which Community law, it must be able to

circulate freely within the Community. If thereof ('… consequently, these methods not, the very existence of the common should be compulsory for all commer organization of the market is com cial transactions and all verification promised. procedures'). These grounds make it mandatory to consider the regulation as It follows that as regards the material also applicable to the methods of analysis properties required, the question calls for which are necessary to verify the an answer in the affirmative to the effect existence of the material properties wich that in order to warrant the description are required by the Community 'table wine' and to be able to circulate regulations in respect of the product in freely in the Community, a wine need question. This view is supported by the only satisfy the conditions laid down by provisions of Article 1 of the regulation Community regulations. itself, since Regulation No 816/70 includes Article 39a which imposes upon In order to answer the second question, Member States the obligation to take all the Italian Government first examines appropriate measures to verify the French rules in the field in question. compliance with the provisions of In its opinion, the presumption of Community law. Moreover, if a different over-alcoholization is a measure for view were taken, the aim of the common checking the existence of certain organization of the market would be material properties which wine must jeopardized since a product which was

On the Community law to keep it in force. other hand, when red wine is produced, the grape must normally remains in However, according to the Italian contact with these solid parts. Therefore Government, Community regulations, in the dry extract of red wine tends to reach particular Regulation No 1539/71, do not higher levels and consequently the allow a Member State to adopt the 100° alcohol/dry extract ratio is smaller. But method of analysis for the application of even comparing one red wine with the presumption of the addition of another the dry extract is greater the

PROCUREUR AIX-EN-PROVENCE v LAHAILLE

Regulation No 1769/72 which introduced this document has from Sardinia. only been applied since 1 April 1972. However, the Commission recalls that During the previous period, a provisional the possibility of rebutting the state of affairs existed, governed by presumption enables it to be taken into Regulation No 1022/70, where an consideration that a wine which is accompanying certificate was required perfectly wholesome may, in spite of only for trade between Member States. everything, show an alcohol/dry extract The Commission wonders, in view of ratio in excess of the upper limit for these regulations, what room still exists many reasons, and in this connexion it for the application of national legislation refers to two French circulars of 2 March and considers that the question calls for a

substances. If these provisions are could not prohibit the product in infringed the wine may not be offered question from entering its territory. On or disposed of for direct human that basis, the Commission considers that consumption even if it comes within the the Court should say in answer to the category of table wine, and this is now Cour d'appel, Aix-en-Provence, that in stated expressly by Article 28 a of trade between Member States, and from 1 Regulation No 816/70 which was April 1973 also in trade within Member introduced by Regulation No 2680/72. States, the latter may not make the Products which may not be offered for movement of table wines subject to direct human consumption are not, requirements other than those laid down however, in the Commission's opinion, by Community law.

As regards oenological processes and having an effect equivalent to rules of analysis, the Commission quantitative restrictions on imports considers that the Court's reply should constitutes. If the controls imposed by a be that at the present stage of Member State on the products of other Community rules, Member States may Member States were carried out more make the offer or disposal of table wines rigorously than on home-manufactured for direct human consumption within products, this would be such a measure. their territory subject to compliance with oenological processes and rules of In the Commission's opinion it is analysis other than those laid down by impossible to raise the objection to this Community regulations, provided that answer that the presumption in question the prohibition on measures having causes the Community rules on the an effect equivalent to quantitative enrichment of wine to be replaced by the restrictions referred to in Article 31 of mere conformity of the results of the Regulation No 816/70 is observed. chemical analysis with the values laid down by national legislation.

are observed. In this connexion it refers by contrast with home-produced wines to Article 9 of Regulation No 1594/70 is, for example, a measure having an and to Article 39a of Regulation No effect equivalent to a quantitative 816/70. restriction on imports. Although the Commission cannot within the context In this respect the Commission observes of these proceedings commit itself as to that the provisions of Community law on whether the values laid down in French the harmonization of verification law are fair in respect of all Community procedures which have been adopted up wines, there is nothing in its opinion to to the present are not exhaustive and that make it believe a priori that these values none of the provisions of the Com penalize wines from other Member munity rules prevents the application of States. the presumption of over-alcoholization which is based on the alcohol/dry extract Then the Commission dismisses another ratio. objection which may be made to the conclusion set out above.

PROCUREUR AIX-EN-PROVENCE v LAHAILLE

mathematical operations are sufficient for In this connexion the Commission the person concerned to show that the merely claims, as regards the facts, that it enrichment is legal, if such is really the is not possible to transpose the case. alcohol/extract ratio based on one of the two methods of analysis (100° and Finally the Commission points out that densimetric methods) into values the effect which Community law has of calculated on the basis of the other, and, repealing contrary provisions of national as regards the law, that Regulation No law consists essentially in rendering 1539/71 does not allow Member States to inapplicable provisions of national law to lay down any other method of analysis of the extent to which their contents are the dry extract than the densimetric contrary to the contents of the provisions method. of Community law. Indeed, a Member State may and sometimes must go further At the oral proceedings on 11 June 1975 than this and formally repeal provisions Mr Margnat, represented by Mr J. of national law. But repealing provisions Imbach, Mr Seneclauze, represented by in this way is then the action of the Mr P. Guerre, the Fédération nationale Member State. In this case, although it is des producteurs de vins de table, true that Article 25 of Regulation No represented by Mr B. Celice, the French 816/70 by its wording precludes the Government, represented by Mr R. applicability in a Member State of a rule Tinlot, Chief Inspector in the Serice de the content of which is similar to that of la répression des fraudes and the Article 2 of the Law of 24 July 1894, this Commission, represented by its Legal article, on the other hand, has no effect Adviser, Mr G. Marenco, presented oral on the presumption of over-alcohol­ argument. ization unless it is proved that a contradiction exists between these two During this hearing the parties adduced rules. new arguments which are summarized below:

JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1975 — JOINED CASES 10 TO 14/75

Moreover, the French Government be determined. It is true that the present recalls that most of the samples taken ratio in France is determined by the from wines imported by the accused in 100° method and it is true that at the main actions took place before present there is no alcohol/dry extract 1 September 1971, the date when ratio based on another method. But, in Regulation No 1539/71 came into the Commission's opinion, it is certain operation, which is perhaps the reason that on the basis of experiments based why the Cour d'appel, Aix-en-Provence only on the densimetric method a new has not asked any questions concerning alcohol/dry extract ratio could be that regulation. formulated.

3 It follows from the judgments making the reference that the questions were raised during prosecutions brought against French wine traders for offering for sale table wines imported from Italy which had been subject to illegal processes to increase the alcoholic strength.

PROCUREUR AIX-EN-PROVENCE v LAHAILLE

4 The prosecutions are based on Article 8 of the Code du vin which re-enacts the provisions of the Decree of 19 April 1898 and creates a presumption of over-alcoholization of wine if the proportion of alcohol to reduced extract is in excess of 4-6 in respect of red wines and 6-5 in respect of white wines, subject to certain adjustments which were introduced to take account of particular methods of wine-making.

5 The Cour d'appel, Aix-en-Provence asks essentially whether the Community rules in the wine sector enable the Member States to apply a presumption in law of over-alcoholization such as that laid down in Article 8 of the French Code du vin.

6 Under Regulation No 816/70 certain processes such as the increase of the alcoholic strength by vinification, acidification, deacidification and sweetening are only authorized under the conditions laid down in Articles 18 to 21, whilst the addition of alcohol to wine is prohibited by Article 25.

7 Article 27 provides that the description 'table wine' shall be limited to the wine defined under Item 10 of Annex II to the regulation which lays down inter alia certain values relating to the alcoholic strength and to the acidity content.

12 Regulation No 1022/70 of the Commission of 29 May 1970, which was adopted for a transitional period, provided with regard to trade within the Member States that the competent agency of the producer Member State shall issue an accompanying document which attests, after analysis and organoleptic tests carried out by an official laboratory or institution, that the wine is wholesome and of good merchantable quality and that it complies with the conditions for disposal for direct human consumption within the Community.

13 Regulation No 1769/72 of the Commission of 26 July 1972 which was applicable from 1 April 1973 prescribed the use of an accompanying document containing inter alia the particulars necessary to acquaint the consignee with the nature of the product whenever wine is transported between two places in the Community.

14 It follows from this that although the Member States could still prescribe the use of national certificates in respect of their own products moving within their territory during the transitional period, at no time could they require a certificate, other than that governed by Community rules, in respect of products from other Member States.

15 However, the conditions which are necessary to enable a wine to be released to the market for direct human consumption must be fulfilled not only when it is first placed on the market and when it is imported into a Member State but in addition at all the subsequent marketing stages.

16 Therefore, measures of control may prove necessary in order to check that the wine has not been subject at those stages to illegal processes such as the addition of alcohol, which is prohibited by Article 25 of Regualtion No 816/70.

21 Such a presumption in law must be described as a measure of control and not as a rule of analysis when it is not irrebuttable but may be invalidated.

22 It must therefore be concluded that in the present state of the Community rules, a Member State may in principle apply a presumption in law as a measure of control in order to detect cases of over-alcoholization.

23 However, a presumption in law of over-alcoholization would not be permissible as a national measure of control if its application could put at a disadvantage wines from other Member States and therefore constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction, which is prohibited by Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Article 31 (1) (b) of Regulation No 816/70.

JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1975 — JOINED CASES 10 TO 14/75

24 This would be the case for example if the possibility of rebutting the presumption in respect of wines originating in another Member State were not available in law and in fact to the same extent and under the same

conditions as in respect of home-produced wines.

PROCUREUR AIX-EN-PROVENCE v LAHAILLE

31 In this respect it is important to remember that although Regulation No 816/70 leaves to the Member States the choice of the necessary measures of control, it nevertheless requires them to ensure compliance with the provisions concerning oenological processes, including the prohibition on adding alcohol to wine.

32 In any case, this has been the situation since Regulation No 2680/72 of 12 December 1972, which came into force on 1 January 1973 introduced into Regulation No 816/70 an additional article, 39a, which provides that 'Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure compliance with this, regulation'.

33 It must be concluded from this that a national measure of control which is intended to detect cases of the addition of alcohol to wine in violation of the

Community prohibition comes within the field of application of Regulation No 816/70 and consequently within that of Regulation No 1539/71 on methods of analysis.

34 However, in order to answer the question which has been referred it is also necessary to inquire whether a presumption in law based on the proportion of alcohol to dry extract may be applied in practice if only the densimetric method laid down by Regulation No 1539/71 is permissible for the measurement of the total dry extract.

39 It follows that this presumption would be rendered impracticable if the densimetric method was obligatory to the exclusion of the 100° method, but that on the other hand the latter may only be applied with caution.

40 The use of the densimetric method laid down by the Community regulation is not an aim in itself but a means intended to ensure compliance with Community rules on oenological processes and on the quality of wines.

41 In the absence of Community measures of control, it would therefore be contrary to the aims of the Community rules on this subject to require that this method be used at the cost of invalidating the only method of control which is at present acknowledged to be appropriate for the detection of over-alcoholization.

42 It must be concluded from this that until more appropriate methods have been formulated, the Community rules in the wine sector do not prohibit Member States from using the 100° method to measure the dry extract of wine in order to apply a presumption in law of over-alcoholization based on the proportion of alcohol to dry extract.

Costs

43 The costs incurred by the French Government, the Government of the Italian Republic and the Commission of the European Communities which have submitted observations to the Court are not recoverable.

1. Table wines, in order to be entitled to that designation and to move freely in the territory of the Member States, need not comply with any rules of analysis other than those laid down in Regulation No 816/70.

2. A Member State may not require in respect of wines from another Member State an accompanying certificate, other than that governed by Community regulations.

3. A Member State may in the present state of Community law apply as a national measure of control a presumption in law of over-alcoholization which is based on the proportion of alcohol to the dry extract measured by the 100° method, provided that that presumption is capable of being rebutted and that it is applied in such a way as not to place at a disadvantage, in law or in fact, wines from other Member States.

Lecourt Mertens de Wilmars Mackenzie Stuart Donner Monaco

Pescatore Kutscher Sørensen O'Keeffe

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 30 September 1975.