C-265/86
ECLI:EU:C:1988:123
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61986CC0265
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
MÜLLER v LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER RHEINLAND-PFALZ
O P I N I O N O F M R A D V O C A T E GENERAL CRUZ VILAÇA delivered on 8 March 1988 *
Mr President, from the Aris variety. The application was Members of the Court, rejected by the Landwirtschaftskammer (Agricultural Chamber) Rheinland-Pfalz on the ground that wines from interspecific varieties could no longer be given an official 1. These proceedings are concerned with a control number as quality wines psr. question submitted by the Verwaltungs- gericht (Administrative Court), Trier, for a preliminary ruling by this Court on the interpretation of the Community regulations concerning the classification of vine varieties and the conditions under which wines may 4. The issue of such a number was be regarded as quality wines produced in precluded, in particular, by the combined specified regions ('quality wines psr'). provisions 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 psr 1, the effect of which is I — The facts of the case that only the species Vitis vinifera may be used for the production of such wines.
2. During 1972 and 1973, the plaintiff in the main proceedings obtained from the Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Weinbau und Umweltschutz (Ministry of Agriculture, 5. After unsuccessfully appealing against the Wine-growing and the Environment) of rejection of its application, the plaintiff in Rheinland-Pfalz approval for cultivation the main proceedings brought an action contracts for a variety known as 'Aris', before the Verwaltungsgericht Trier, relying obtained from interspecific crossings with in particular upon Paragraph 55 (2) of the vines of the species Vitis riparia. Until 1984, German Law on Wines and Article 13 (4) wines containing, within certain limits, of Council Regulation No 347/79 of 5 products from grapes of the Aris variety February 1979 on general rules for the were recognized in Rheinland-Pfalz as classification of vine varieties. 2 quality wines psr.
3. On 14 December 1985, the plaintiff in 6. Having doubts as to the scope of Article the main proceedings re-applied for an 13 (4) of Regulation No 347/79, in the official control number recognizing as a light of the combined provisions of Article quality wine psr a wine of which 10% came 1 — Official Journal 1979, L 54, p. 48. * Translated from the Portuguese. 2 — Official Journal 1979, L 54, p. 75.
OPINION OF MR CRUZ VILAÇA — CASE 265/86
6 (1) (a) and the first subparagraph of 9. The effect of the first two provisions is Article 4 (1) of Regulation No 338/79, the that a quality wine psr may be produced Verwaltungsgericht stayed the proceedings only from classified varieties belonging to before it and referred the following question the species Vitis vinifera; for its part, Article to this Court for a preliminary ruling: 13 (4) of Regulation N o 347/79 treats as products derived from authorized varieties products obtained from a variety undergoing cultivation suitability trials, scientific research or selection or crossing ' O n the basis of the provision in Article experiments. 13 (4) of Regulation (EEC) N o 347/79, may wine from vine varieties undergoing cultivation suitability trials, scientific research or selection or crossing 10. Will the result of that deemed equiv- experiments be recognized as quality wine alence be that wines obtained from a variety produced in a specified region or would that not belonging to the species Vitis vinifera be contrary to the first sentence of Article but undergoing cultivation suitability trials 6 (1) (a) in conjunction with the first may be regarded as quality wines psr, so sentence of Article 4 (1) of Regulation that the restrictive provisions of Articles (EEC) N o 338/79?' 4 (1) and 6 (1) of Regulation N o 338/79 are over-stepped?
II — Analysis of the question submitted 11. That is the view expressed by the plaintiff in the main proceedings which — as we learn from the the German court's order for reference — relies inter alia on the 7. It is clear from what I have just said that following arguments: the question submitted by the national court is in essence intended to determine whether a wine obtained from a variety not belonging to the species Vitis vinifera may be classified as a quality wine psr provided (a) Article 13 (4) of Regulation No 347/79 that the variety in question is undergoing is a special provision and is more recent cultivation suitability trials, scientific than Regulation N o 338/79; research or selection or crossing ex- periments.
(b) It appears from Articles 31 (1) 3 and 49 (1) of Council Regulation N o 337/79 of 5 February 1979 on the 8. As is apparent from the very wording of common organization of the market in the question, the main difficulty stems from wine 4 that the Council wished to the contradictory guidance given by Article 6 (1) (a) and the first subparagraph of 3 — Formerly Article 30 (1). The new version is the result of Article 4 (1) of Regulation N o 338/79 on the amendments made to Regulation No 337/79 by Council Regulation No 454/80 of 18 February 1980 the one hand and, on the other, by Article (Official Journal 1980, L 57, p. 7). 13 (4) of Regulation N o 347/79. 4 — Official Journal 1979, L 54, p. 1.
MÜLLER v LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER RHEINLAND-PFALZ
reserve to itself the possibility of dero- 14. A. The first indent of Article 30 (1) 5of gating, or authorizing derogations, from Regulation No 337/79, which established the principle laid down in Article 6 of the common organization of the market in Regulation No 338/79 that only the wine, authorized the Council to adopt recommended or authorized varieties general rules on the classification of referred to in Article 4 (1) of the same varieties; such classification is to be by regulation may be used for the administrative unit or p a r t thereof and production of quality wines psr. Article comprises recommended, authorized and 13 of Regulation No 347/79 in fact temporarily authorized varieties. provided for such derogations in cases of officially authorized cultivation trials; those cases therefore are covered exclu- sively by A r t i c l e13 (4) which, by treating the products of such trials as if 15. At the same time, the second indent of they came from authorized varieties, A r t i c l e30 (1) provided that, in the enables them to be used for the framework of those general rules, the production of quality wine psr. Council might authorize the Member State to derogate, with a view to investigating suitability for cultivation, scientific research, and so forth, from the rule laid down in paragraph 2 that only recommended or (c) In the negotiations leading up to the authorized varieties might be planted, adoption of the rules on the common replanted or grafted in the Community. organization of the market in wine, the German delegation took the view that trials involving cultivations of new vine varieties were not covered by Article 3 of Regulation No 817/70 (which 16. Article 49 of the same regulation, No preceded Regulation No 338/79). 337/79, laid down the rule that only grapes from those varieties could be used for the production of grape must, table wine, liqueur wine or quality wine psr; however, it allowed the Council to make exceptions to 12. I do not, however, find the arguments that rule. which I have just summarized very convincing, in so far as they do not appear conducive to the best possible interpretation of the legislation in question. 17. It was on the basis of the authority granted by Article 30 of Regulation No 337/79 (now Article 31, with the wording 13. To demonstrate this, it is useful to introduced by Regulation No 454/80) that distinguish, as the Commission has done, the Council adopted Regulation No 347/79 between two groups of Community rules on general rules for the classification of vine which are applicable to the case: the general varieties permitted to be grown in the rules on the classification of vine Community, which superseded Council varieties — contained in Regulations Nos Regulation No 1388/70 of 13 July 1970. 6 337/79 and 347/79—-and the rules speci- According to Article 1 of Regulation No fically applicable to quality wines 5 — Now Article31 (1). psr — Regulation No 338/79. 6 — Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 420.
OPINION OF MR CRUZ VILAÇA — CASE 265/86
347/79, the classification of vine varieties is products obtained in those circumstances to include all vine varieties of the genus can be disposed of. Vitis, including those derived from inter- specific crossings; it therefore extends also to the 'Aris' variety, an interspecific crossing with Vitis riparia varieties. 22. But does it also mean that the products in question are ipso facto suitable for the production of quality wines psr? 18. Article 5 of Regulation N o 347/79 refers to the division of varieties into three groups (recommended, authorized and temporarily authorized), and the following articles indicate which varieties are to be 23. That does not appear to be the case. included in each of the categories, according to the normal use of the grapes obtained from them (Article 6, for example, deals with grape varieties for wine).
24. All that can be said is that by treating products from varieties undergoing culti- vation suitability trials, and so forth, as 19. Article 13 (1) reiterates the prohibition equivalent to products from authorized of planting unclassified varieties and tempo- varieties, Article 13 (4) constitutes an rarily authorized varieties, already included exception to the rule contained in Article in Article 30 (2) of Regulation N o 337/79, 7 49 (1) of Regulation No 337/79, according although Article 13 (2) allows the Member to which the only varieties suitable for wine States to permit derogations from that production are recommended and auth- prohibition, for the purposes mentioned orized varieties. In other words, by virtue of therein, as provided for in the second indent Article 13 (4) of Regulation N o 347/79, of Article 30 (1) of Regulation N o 337/79. unclassified varieties undergoing cultivation suitability trials, which could already be planted or grafted by virtue of Article 13 (2), can also be used for the manu- facture of grape must, concentrated grape must, wine suitable for the production of 20. Article 13 (4) provides for products table wine, table wine and liqueur wine, by obtained from varieties planted for certain way of exception to the principle laid down of the purposes referred to in Article 13 (2) in Article 49 (1) of Regulation N o 337/79. to be treated as products from authorized varieties.
25. Specifically, their being treated as auth- 21. The Commission explains that the orized varieties means that it is recognized purpose of that provision is to ensure that that they can normally provide 'sound and marketable wine of a quality which, while 7 — Initial version — now Article 31. of an acceptable standard' is lower than that
MÜLLER v LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER RHEINLAND-PFALZ
of the wine obtained from recommended 29. It follows that, as a result of Article varieties (Article 6 (1) (b) of Regulation 13 (4) of Regulation No 347/79, varieties No 347/79). undergoing cultivation suitability trials fulfil only the first of the abovementioned conditions for the production of a quality wine psr, namely that they are varieties 26. That possibility would even extend to belonging to recommended or authorized the production of quality wines psr, had no categories. But, since those varieties have stricter requirements also been laid down not been treated as equivalent to those of for the production of such wines. the species Vitis vinifera, they would also have to fulfil the other two conditions laid down by Article 4 (1) of Regulation No 27. The specific conditions for classification 338/79 for the production of quality wines of a wine as a quality wine psr are not laid psr: they would have to belong to the down in Regulation No 347/79: as the species Vitis vinifera and appear in the Commission emphasizes, that regulation special list prepared by the Member State in gives no guidance whatsoever concerning question. the suitability of the various varieties of grapes for wine (in particular, those of the recommended or authorized varieties) as far as the production of quality wines psr is concerned.
28. B. It is Regulation No 338/79 which 30. Thus, it can only be concluded from the contains the special provisions concerning combined provisions of Article 13 (4) of quality wines psr, in particular the specific Regulation No 347/79 and Articles 6 and 4 requirements for a wine to be classifiable as of Regulation No 338/79 that varieties such. It is apparent from the combined undergoing cultivation suitability trials must provisions of Articles 6 (1) (a) and 4 (1) necessarily belong to the species Vitis that the only suitable varieties for the vinifera if they are to be allowed to be used production of quality wine psr are varieties for the production of a quality wine psr and which: must be included in the list prepared by each Member State.
(a) belong to the recommended or auth- orized categories referred to in Article 31 8of Regulation No 337/79;
(b) are of the species Vitis vinifera; 31. That means — notwithstanding the considerable latitude allowed to the Member States by Regulation No 338/79 (the Commission mentions in that respect (c) appear in the list drawn up by each Articles 2, 3 (2), 7, 11 (2) and 19) —the Member State of the varieties suitable Community legislature was anxious to apply for the production of quality wines psr. particularly severe requirements to the production of quality wines psr, in 8 — Old Article 30. conformity with the objectives of 'a policy
OPINION OF MR CRUZ VILAÇA — CASE 265/86
of encouraging quality production in agri- 347/79, 9 each of those measures has a culture and especially in wine-growing' specific area of application and it is not (second recital in the preamble). correct to regard the latter (and in particular Article 13 (4) thereof) as a lex specialis with respect to the former. 32. As was explained at the hearing, the intention is to achieve the controlled adap- tation of the plants grown to the progress achieved in the ecological and oenological 37. In actual fact, the position is that both fields by means of tests and experiments are special laws with respect to Regulation which first involve long-term technical No 337/79, to which express reference is investigations into the value of a species for made in the preamble to each of them and cultivation purposes, before its suitability for of which they implement or develop the the production of quality wine psr can be principles within the area specific to each of examined. them.
33. As regards such suitability, the express choice made by the legislature at the present 38. It may even be said — as the stage of development has been to limit it to Commission did in its observations — that, the varieties of the species Vitis vinifera, and since Article 13 (4) of Regulation No the deemed equivalence under Article 347/79 is a derogating provision (and 13 (4) cannot override the clear prohibition therefore one which departs from the of using varieties of different species (in general rule contained in Article 49 of particular of the species Vitis riparia). Regulation No 337/79), it must be inter- preted not extensively but restrictively.
34. Accordingly — notwithstanding the deemed equivalence under Article 13 (4) of Regulation No 347/79 — the legislature did 39. If any other meaning were to be not make use of the possibility of dero- attached to Article 13 (4), the absurd result gations referred to in Article 49 (1) of would follow that a wine obtained from Regulation No 337/79 in order to enable vine varieties which were the subject of varieties undergoing cultivation suitability experiments could be classified as a quality trials to be used for the production of wine psr whereas a wine obtained from a quality wine psr. variety which was classified but did not belong to the species Vitis vinifera could not be accorded that classification. 35. The equivalence provided for in Article 13 (4) must therefore be kept within the scope of Regulation No 347/79, which lays 40. Moreover (as the Commission pointed down general classification rules for vine out at the hearing) Article 49 (2) of Regu- varieties, without therefore extending to the lation No 337/79 expressly provides that field covered by Regulation No 338/79, 'grapes from vineyards planted with varieties which lays down the special conditions for classified as temporarily authorized shall quality wine psr. 9 — This only becomes clear if account is taken of the dates of the regulations which they replaced: Regulation No 817/70 of 28 April 1970, which preceded Regulation No 338/79; 36. Although Regulation No 338/79 may and Regulation No 1388/70 of 13 July 1970, which be regarded as preceding Regulation No preceded Regulation No 347/79.
MÜLLER v LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER RHEINLAND-PFALZ
also be regarded as suitable for yielding 42. The conclusion which I have outlined is products listed in paragraph 1 with the not in any way undermined by the exception of quality wines psr', where such statement made by the German delegation grapes belong, inter alia, to varieties at the time of the adoption of the rules on obtained from interspecific crossings. the common organization of the market in April 1970, which was relied upon by the plaintiff in the main proceedings. Besides 41. In other words, even where the varieties being a unilateral, unpublished statement, are temporarily authorized and are obtained and therefore of no interpretative value for (like the 'Aris' variety) from an interspecific this Court, it is unconnected with the crossing, the legislature precluded their use relationship between Articles 4 and 6 of for the production of quality wines psr Regulation No 338/79 and Article 13 (4) of although it expressly allowed them to be Regulation No 347/79 since, as has been used for the preparation of the other emphasized by the Commission, it merely products referred to in Article 49 (1) (and indicates that experiments with new varieties even then subject to the time limit of 31 are not affected by Article 3 of Regulation December 1979). No 817/70. 10
HI — Conclusion
43. I therefore propose that the Court should give the following answer to the questions submitted by the Verwaltungsgericht Trier:
By virtue of the combined provisions of Article 13 (4) of Regulation N o 347/79, on the one hand, and, on the other, the first subparagraph of Article 6 (1) (a) and the first subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of Regulation N o 338/79, wine obtained from varieties undergoing cultivation suitability trials, scientific investigation or crossing or selection experiments may only be recognized as quality wine produced in specified regions if the varieties used belong exclusively to the species Vitis vinifera.
10 — Now Article 4 of Regulation No 338/79.