C-233/78

JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1979 — JOINED CASES 233, 234 AND 235/78

must relate to a minimum quantity of increase its costs out of proportion to 100 hectolitres. The attainment of the objective sought and thus justify a that objective is not however linked to refusal to conclude a storage contract. the storage in a single place of the quantities temporarily removed from 3. The expression "place of storage" the market. On the contrary, the duty used in Article 4 (2) (c) and Article 14 to store the wine in a single storage of Regulation No 2015/76 cannot be place might form an obstacle to the attainment of the above-mentioned interpreted as obliging the national intervention agencies to refuse to objective, in particular where the conclude a storage contract with a wines are those of various producers producer or groups of producers of who have formed a group. table wine of the sole ground that the 2. The intervention agencies are not quantity forming the subject-matter of obliged to conclude storage contracts the contract sought is not stored in a no matter how dispersed the places in single place, that is to say on one and which the wines are stored. By giving the same plot of land. However it is the Member States the task of and for the competent national authorities responsibility for adopting "all to determine, having regard to the measures to ensure that the necessary specific conditions in the wine­ checks are made", Article 7 of Regu­ growing zones in question, to what lation No 2015/76 grants those extent a multiplication of the places of Member States a margin of discretion storage, which is likely to jeopardize in determining, having regard to the the effectiveness of the check on specific conditions of the wine­ storage operations or to make them growing zones in question, to what abnormally expensive, allows the extent a multiplication of the places of conclusions of storage contracts to be storage would be likely to jeopardize refused. the effectiveness of the check or to

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, represented by the Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft

LENTES v GERMANY

in Case 234/78

between

LUDWINE GIBBERT, FR.-J. REIZ DANIELS, JOACHIM GABEL AND REINHOLD LEHNEN

and

on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 2015/76 of the Commission of 13 August 1976 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must and concentrated grape must (Official Journal L 221 of 14 August 1976, p. 20),

THE COURT (First Chamber)

composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President of Chamber, A. O'Keeffe and T. Koopmans, Judges

Advocate General: F. Capotorti Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1979 — JOINED CASES 233, 234 AND 235/78

According to Article 4 of that regulation (b) the manner in which the product is storage contracts shall include at least put up, if such change means an increase in the number of containers the following information: in which it is stored. "(a) the name and address of the producer or producers concerned; The plaintiffs in the main actions are (b) the name and address of the wine producers. At the beginning of intervention agency; 1978 a number of producers made application together to the Bundesamt (c) the following technical details: für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft — the nature of the product (wine, (Federal Food and Forestry Office), with grape must or concentrated a view to concluding a storage contract grape must), for table wine but they were able to reach the minimum quantity of 100 1 — The German version of Article 5 of Regulation No 2015/76 differs from the versions in the five other hectolitres only by adding lesser amounts languages in that in the German version it is stated that which each plaintiff held separately in his the contracts shall relate to "eine Mindestmenge von 100 hl bei Wein und Most und von 50 hl bei own cellars. The Bundesamt für konzentriertem Traubenmost" whilst all the other Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft rejected versions refer to a minimum quantity of 100 hectolitres in the case of wine and 50 hectolitres in the case of the applications on the ground that the must and concentrated must. This disparity was minimum quantity of 100 hectolitres removed in the new version of Article 5 produced by the amendment in Reputation No 2945/78 of the provided for in Article 5 of Regulation Commission of 14 December 1978; the new wording No 2015/76 had not been reached since reads in the versions in all the languages: "Contracts shall cover a minimum quantity of 100 hectolitres in that quantity, being stored in different the case of wine 50 hectolitres in the case of must and 30 hectolitres in the case of concentrated must" cellars, had not been deposited in one (Official Journal L 351, p. 18). place of storage whereas Regulation

No 2015/76, in particular Article 4, must "Must Commission Regulation (EEC) be interpreted as laying down that No 2015/76 of 13 August 1976 on requirement. storage contracts for table wine, grape must and concentrated grape must (Official Journal L 221 of 14 August 1976) be understood, in particular on When their objections against those account of the expression "place of decisions were dismissed, the plaintiffs storage" used in Article 4 (2) (c) and brought three separate actions before Article 14 (a) of that regulation and the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative because of the rule laid down in Article 5 Court) Frankfurt-am-Main. In those as to the minimum quantity of 100 actions they challenge the argument of hectolitres in the case of wine and must, the Bundesamt, maintaining that it has as meaning that the contracts which must overlooked the fact that in all cases in be concluded relating to a minimum which different wines of the same type of quantity of 100 hectolitres in the case of table wine are covered by one contract wine and must (Article 5 of the regu­ but stored in different containers the lation) may, where a contract is technical details listed in Article 4 (2) (c) concluded with producers in groups (first of the regulation, which include the subparagraph of Article 2 (1) of the regu­ place of storage, do not refer to the lation), be concluded only if the whole whole quantity but to the respective part minimum quantity of 100 hectolitres is quantity stored in one container. Fur­ stored in one cellar or in the cellars of thermore, it cannot be concluded from one plot of land?" the fact that Regulation No 2015/76 refers to the "place of storage" that the whole quantity of wine covered by one storage contract must be stored in a single place since all the technical details By an order of 13 December 1978 the listed in Article 4 (2) (c) of the said regu­ Court of Justice, after hearing the views lation are in the singular. Finally, the of the Advocate General, ordered Cases view of the defendant in the main action 233/78, 234/78 and 235/78 to be joined would render meaningless the possibility for the purposes of the written and oral created by Article 2 (1) of the said regu­ procedure. lation that contracts may be concluded with "producers ... in groups", since individual producers alone may not have the minimum quantity of 100 hectolitres required for the storage contract, given In accordance with Article 20 of the that small-scale producers do not Protocol on the Statute of the Court of generally have the means to store such a quantity. Justice of the EEC the Commission of. the European Communities submitted written observations.

Observations of the Commission part quantity belonging to such plaintiff alone. The purpose of the provision laying down a minimum quantity of 100 According to Articles 7 and 17 of Regu­ hectolitres was to prevent the risk of the lation No 2015/76 the Member States intervention agency's having to deal with and intervention agencies are required to problems of divided liability. implement the measures provided for in that regulation. For this purpose they are empowered, as is made clear in the The Commission then explains the judgment of the Court of Justice in the reason for the requirement of a single Schöttler case (judgment of 11 July 1973 place of storage, at least with regard to in Case 3/73 [1973] ECR 745), to lay the requirement of a minimum quantity of 100 hectolitres of table wine. Since down specific requirements in order to ensure that their task of supervision is checks are very expensive and must be implemented without, however, affecting carried out by specialists the requirement rights to subsidies conferred under of a minimum quantity of 100 hectolitres Community law. As to the interpretation makes it possible to confine the expenses of Articles 2, 4 and 5 of Regulation No entailed in each storage contract within 2015/76, the Commission finds that the reasonable limits in so far as that

2 In view of the identical wording of those questions, the Court decided by order of 13 December 1978 to join the cases for the purposes of the written and oral procedure; it is necessary to do the same for the purposes of the judgment.

3 The question has been raised within the context of disputes between the Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, the intervention agency in the Federal Republic of Germany, and various German wine producers, two in Case 233/78, four in Case 234/78 and four in Case 235/78, who had formed groups so as to lodge applications for the conclusion of storage contracts for table wines provided for by Regulation No 2015/76. The Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft rejected those applications on the ground that the minimum quantity of 100 hectolitres to which each contract must relate according to Article 5 of that regulation was not reached because the required quantity was stocked by the various producers in different cellars, whereas in the opinion of the Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft the regulation in question requires that the minimum quantity of 100 hl must be stored in a single place of storage.

4 In these circumstances the national court has asked the Court of Justice the following question: "Must Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2015/76 of

JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1979 — JOINED CASES 233, 234 AND 235/78

13 August 1976 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must and concentrated grape must (Official Journal L 221 of 14 August 1976) be understood, in particular on account of the expression "place of storage" used in Article 4 (2) (c) and Article 14 (a) of that regulation and because of the rule laid down in Article 5 as to the minimum quantity of 100 hl in the case of wine and must, as meaning that the contract which must be concluded relating to a minimum quantity of 100 hl in that e of wine and must (Article 5 of the regulation) may, where a contract concluded with producers in groups (first subparagraph of Article 2 (1) of the regulation), be concluded only if the whole minimum quantity of 100 hl is stored in one cellar or in the cellars of one plot of land?"

LENTES v GERMANY

finally, provides that "the Member States shall take all measures to ensure that the necessary checks are made, and in particular that the identity of the product under contract may be verified and that the volume of the product stored agrees with that specified in the contract".

8 According to the Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, supported in this respect by the Commission, it follows both from the wording of Articles 4 (2) (c) and 14 of Regulation No 2015/76 — in particular from the use of the expression "place of storage" in the singular — and from the general scheme of that regulation that the minimum quantity of 100 hl must be stored in a single place of storage, which means that the quantity stored must be stored if not in the same cellar at least in cellars situated on one plot of land. It claims that this condition fulfils the strict requirement of an effective check on the storage operations. According to the plaintiffs in the main action, on the contrary, the conclusion cannot be drawn either from the wording or from the objectives of Regulation No 2015/76 that the wine must be stored in a single place. Such a requirement would result in hand­ icapping small-scale producers; some dispersion of the quantity of 100 hl to which each contract must relate is not likely to hinder the necessary checks.

9 The use of the expression "place of storage" in the singular in Articles 4 and 14 cannot be considered as decisive for an interpretation of the regulation to the effect that an obligation is imposed in storage contracts to store the quantity to which that contract relates in a single place. The singular is frequently used to refer to several objects in the legal terminology of both the Community and the Member States: Articles 4 and 14 also contain several expressions which may no doubt refer equally either to one or to several legal persons or objects (producer(s), contract(s), product(s)). It is moreover significant that although Article 8 of the regulation is worded in the plural in German and in the singular in the other languages this difference could not give rise to doubts as to the interpretation of that provision.

13 This does not however mean that the intervention agencies are obliged to conclude storage contracts no matter how dispersed the places in which the wines are stored. By giving the Member States the task of and responsibility for adopting "all measures to ensure that the necessary checks are made", Article 7 of Regulation No 2015/76 grants those Member States a margin of discretion in determining, having regard to the specific conditions of the wine-growing zones in question, to what extent a multiplication of the places of storage would be likely to jeopardize the effectiveness of the check or to increase its costs out of proportion to the objective sought and thus justify a refusal to conclude a storage contract.

14 It is therefore necessary to reply to the question referred to the Court that the expression "place of storage" used in Article 4 (2) (c) and Article 14 of Regulation No 2015/76 cannot be interpreted as obliging the national intervention agencies to refuse to conclude a storage contract — for a

LENTES v GERMANY

quantity, moreover, of at least 100 hl — with a producer or groups of producers of table wine on the sole ground that the quantity forming the subject-matter of the contract sought is not stored in a single place, in other words on one and the same plot of land. However it is for the competent national authorities to determine, having regard to the specific conditions in the wine-growing zones in question, to what extent a multiplication of the places of storage, which is likely to jeopardize the effectiveness of the check on storage operations or to make them abnormally expensive, allows the conclusion of storage contracts to be refused.

OPINION OF MR CAPOTORTI — JOINED CASES 233, 234 AND 235/78

a multiplication of the places of storage, which is likely to jeopardize the effectiveness of the check on storage operations or to make them abnormally expensive, allows the conclusion of storage contracts to be refused.

Mertens de Wilmars O'Keeffe Koopmans

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 28 June 1979.

A. Van Houtte J. Mertens de Wilmars Registrar President of the First Chamber

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL CAPOTORTI DELIVERED ON 31 MAY 1979 <apnote>1</apnote>