C-315/88

Mr President, concerning movements and territorial limits Members of the Court, in regard to vinification entail a mere prohibition, or do they enable Member States to adopt measures laying down different rules?' 1. In March 1987, criminal proceedings were brought against Mr Bagli Pennac- chiotti before the national court, because the winegrower's cooperative for which he is responsible vinified 1 495 hectolitres of 3. It is first necessary to point out, as the wine under the registered designation of Commission and the Italian and Spanish origin Frascati outside the area in which the Governments have done, that in addition to grapes were harvested, contrary to Article Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 515 of the Italian Penal Code, which March 1987 on the common organization concerns commercial fraud, and Article 28 of the market in wine, ' to which the of Decree No 930 of the President of the national court refers, the Council has also Republic of 12 July 1963, which lays down adopted Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 of 16 penalties for the unjustified use of a March 1987 laying down special provisions registered or registered and certified desig­ relating to quality wines produced in 2 nation of origin. specified regions, and the wine in issue falls, as we have seen, in that category. Article 15 of that regulation refers to the designations 'denominazione di origine 2. The defendant, relying on the existence controllata' and 'denominazione di origine in Italian law of 'inconsistent administrative controllata e garantita', which the defendant measures' concerning the movement of is charged with having wrongfully used. grapes outside the area in which they were harvested, asked the national court to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the degree of freedom left in such 4. That regulation replaced Council Regu­ matters to the Member States by lation (EEC) No 338/79 of 5 February 1979 Community law, under which the wine in laying down special provisions relating to issue is classified as a quality wine produced quality wines produced in specified in a specified region (hereinafter 'quality 3 regions, to which the defendant in the wine psr') or a quality sparkling wine main proceedings refers. produced in a specified region (hereinafter 'quality sparkling wine psr'). The national court allowed the request and referred the following question to the Court: 5. The question of which of those two enactments applies to the facts in issue does not, however, arise, since the articles 'Do the powers conferred on the Member States by Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 ! — OJ 1987, L 84, p I. 2 — OJ 1987, L 84, p. 59 * Original language: French. 3 — OJ 1979, L 54, p. 48.

The preparation of a quality sparkling wine psr shall take place only within the specified region referred to in the foregoing 9. Since Frascati wine may also, apparently, subparagraph. be a sparkling wine, I should point out that I share the Commission's view that Regu­ lation No 1698/70 applies also to quality However, the operations referred to in the sparkling wines psr. Article 5 of Regulation first and second subparagraphs may take No 817/70, which is equivalent to Article 6 place outside the specified region, where: of Regulation No 823/87, is the provision on the basis of which Regulation No 1698/70 was adopted, and it applies to all quality wines. There is nothing in the (a) the rules of the Member State in whose provisions of Regulation No 1698/70 from territory the grapes were harvested which it can be inferred that the substantive permit, scope of the regulation is more limited than that of the provision on which it is based.

and

has done so only in respect of one part of field is inconsistent. In view of the obser­ the commune of Montecompatri, with vations submitted by the Italian which the present case is not concerned. If, Government, that does not appear to be the however, the Italian rules do provide, in case but, in any event, it is not a question to accordance with Community law, for a be decided by the Court in the context of wider derogation covering the preparation this reference for a preliminary ruling. of Frascati sparkling wines, the national court must take account of that fact if the main proceedings concern such wines — 14. It must also be noted that the question which appears very doubtful. But if that is referred to the Court refers also to the case, the defendant must also hold 'transfers'. It appears, however, from the an express authorization. order for reference that Mr Bagli Pennac- chiotti is charged with having 'carried out the vinification process outside the area of 11. The defendant claims, however, that production of the grapes as laid down in the Article 15(2) of Regulation No 822/87, production rules'. It would therefore appear read together with Annex VI thereto, allows that the only problem raised concerns the aeration and heat treatment to be carried question of the territorial limits of vinifi­ out by movement for climatic purposes. cation, which I have examined above. That argument cannot, in my view, be accepted. The relevant provisions listing authorized processes do indeed include aeration and heat treatment among those 15. In so far as it may be relevant to the processes, but make no mention whatever of main proceedings, however, I would state where they are to be carried out. that I share the Commission's view that only after the processing of the grapes into wine, whether sparkling or not, is completely 12. Those operations unquestionably form finished — that is to say, at the end of the part of the vinification process, so the rules minimum ageing period, where set out above must be applied. applicable — that any movement outside the 'specified region' may take place without the wine losing its right to the designation 13. The defendant in the main proceedings 'quality wine psr' or 'quality sparkling wine also claims that the Italian legislation in this psr'.