C-306/93

SMW WINZERSEKT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 13 December 1994 *

In Case C-306/93,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Verwal- tungsgericht Mainz (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

SMW Winzersekt GmbH

and

JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1994 — CASE C-306/93

Advocate General: C. Gulmann, Registrar: H . A. Rühi, Principal Administrator,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

— SMW Winzersekt G m b H , by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,

— the French Government, by Jean-Louis Falconi, Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the Legal-Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Cathe- rine de Salins, Adviser for Foreign Affairs at the same Ministry, acting as Agents,

— the Council of the European Union, by Bernhard Schloh and Arthur Bräuti- gam, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By order of 25 March 1993, received at the Court on 4 June 1993, the Verwal- tungsgericht (Administrative Court) Mainz referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the validity of the second and third subparagraphs of Article 6(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) N o 2333/92 of 13 July 1992 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of sparkling wines and aerated sparkling wines (OJ 1992 L 231, p. 9) ('Regulation N o 2333/92').

2 That question arose in a dispute between SMW Winzersekt G m b H ('Winzersekt') and the Land Rheinland-Pfalz concerning the use after 31 August 1994 of the term 'Flaschengärung im Champagnerverfahren' ('bottle-fermented by the champagne method') to describe certain quality sparkling wines produced in a specified region ('quality sparkling wines psr').

3 Regulation N o 2333/92 was adopted following numerous amendments to Council Regulation (EEC) N o 3309/85 of 18 November 1985 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of sparkling wines and aerated sparkling wines (OJ 1985 L 320, p. 9) ('Regulation N o 3309/85').

4 According to the second recital in the preamble to Regulation N o 2333/92, the purpose of description of sparkling wines and aerated sparkling wines is to provide potential final customers and public bodies responsible for organizing and super- vising the marketing of the products concerned with sufficiently clear and accurate information to enable them to form an opinion of the products.

— a quality sparkling wine psr,

I - 5574

SMW WINZERSEKT

Use of such a name shall be allowed only if:

(a) it conforms to the rules of the Member State or third country in which the sparkling wine was produced;

(b) the geographical unit in question is defined exactly;

Use of one of the expressions referred to in the first subparagraph shall be allowed only if the product:

(a) was made sparkling by a second alcoholic fermentation in the bottle;

(b) stayed without interruption in contact with the lees for at least nine months in the same undertaking from the time when the cuvée was constituted;

(c) was separated from the lees by disgorging.

5. A n expression relating to a method of production which includes the name of a specified region or of another geographical unit, or a term derived from either of these, may be used only to describe:

— a quality sparkling wine psr,

s Winzersekt is an association of wine-growers who produce sparkling wine from wines of the Mosel-Saar-Ruwer region using a process referred to as 'méthode champenoise', which means in particular that fermentation takes place in the bottle and the cuvée is separated from the lees by disgorging. The quality sparkling wines psr thus produced are marketed under the description 'Flaschengärung im Cham- pagnerverfahren' ('bottle-fermented by the champagne method') or 'klassische Flaschengärung — méthode champenoise' ('classical bottle fermentation — méth- ode champenoise').

9 By a binding judgment of 2 February 1989, the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz held that Winzersekt was entitled until 31 August 1994 to use the designation 'methode champenoise' in the above descriptions for its products which satisfied the require- ments of traditional bottle fermentation.

io O n 7 January 1992 Winzersekt applied to the Ministry of Agriculture, Viticulture and Forests of the Land Rheinland-Pfalz for a 'binding statement' as to whether it would be lawfully entitled to continue to use the description 'Flaschengärung im Champagnerverfahren' after 31 August 1994. By decision of 15 January 1992 the

I - 5577

JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1994 — CASE C-306/93

Ministry, referring to the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz of 2 February 1989, stated that pursuant to Article 6(5) of Regulation N o 3309/85 the use of that designation could not be permitted after 31 August 1994.

ity of Regulation N o 2333/92, which was not in force at the material time. The question referred to the Court, it argues, is for that reason irrelevant. At the hear- ing, the French Government also expressed its doubts as to the reality of the dis- pute.

n Those objections must be rejected.

M In the first place, Regulation N o 2333/92 codifies several amendments made to Regulation N o 3309/85. With regard to Article 6 of Regulation N o 2333/92 men- tioned in the question in the reference, it should be pointed out that, apart from some minor textual differences, it is in essence identical to Article 6 of Regulation N o 3309/85, which served as the basis for the decision of 15 January 1992 and against which Winzersekt brought proceedings before the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz following the adoption of Regulation N o 2333/92. The Court's reply to the question submitted will therefore enable the national court to resolve the dispute pending before it.

is So far as the French Government's second argument is concerned, it must be remembered that when a question on the validity of a measure adopted by the Community institutions is raised before a national court, it is for that court to decide whether a decision on the matter is necessary to enable it to give judgment and consequently whether it should request the Court to rule on that question. It is then a matter for the Court, within the framework of the close cooperation with national courts established by Article 177 of the Treaty, to reply to the question submitted by the national court, unless it should appear to it that the question sub- mitted has no connection with the reality or subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings.

The rìght to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession

20 Winzersekt takes the view that the contested provision adversely affects both its right to property and its right freely to pursue a trade or profession, which form

I - 5580

SMW WINZERSEKT

part of the general principles of Community law. It submits in that connection that the designation 'méthode champenoise' is of fundamental importance for its com- mercial activity in so far as that designation enables it to make the public aware of its method of production. That method distinguishes it from the vast majority of German producers of sparkling wine, whose production method is either that of closed-tank fermentation or that of racking, two methods which are less onerous than the 'méthode champenoise' and which enable those producers to offer their products to consumers at much more attractive prices than Winzersekt. Win- zersekt also submits that the designation forms part of its assets and should benefit from the protection granted to property rights. If Winzersekt were unable to con- tinue to use the designation 'méthode champenoise', it would be placed at a com- petitive disadvantage and its very existence might be jeopardized.

21 It should be pointed out in this respect that in matters concerning the common agricultural policy the Community legislature has a broad discretion which corre- sponds to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 40 and 43 of the Treaty and that the Court has, on several occasions, held that the lawfulness of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate, having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue (see, most recently, the judgment of 5 October 1994 in Case C-280/93 Germany v Council, paragraphs 89 and 90).

25 It should be noted in this regard that among the objectives pursued by Regulation N o 2333/92, that of the protection of registered designations or indications of the geographical origin of wines is an objective of general interest. In order to achieve that objective, the Council was entitled to regard it as essential, on the one hand, that the final consumer should receive sufficiently accurate information to enable him to form an opinion of the products in question and, on the other hand, that the producer should not derive advantage, for his own product, from a reputation established for a similar product by producers from a different region. This implies that a wine producer cannot be authorized to use, in descriptions relating to the method of production of his products, geographical indications which do not cor- respond to the actual provenance of the wine.

26 That objective is implemented in particular by Article 6 of Regulation N o 2333/92, which provides that the use of terms relating to a production method may refer to

I - 5582

SMW WINZERSEKT

the name of a geographical unit only where the wine in question is entitled to use that geographical indication.

27 It follows that the prohibition laid down in that provision is not manifestly inap- propriate in relation to the objective of the regulation at issue.

situations should not be treated identically unless such differentiation is objectively justified (see judgment in Case C-217/91 Spain v Commission [1993] E C R Ī-3923, paragraph 37).

3i In the present case, the second and third subparagraphs of Article 6(5) of Regula­ tion N o 2333/92 apply to all producers of sparkling wines in the Community with the exception of those who are entitled to use the registered designation 'Cham­ pagne'. The fact of entitlement to use that registered designation is an objective matter which can justify a difference in treatment. In those circumstances, a differ­ ence in the treatment of each of those two groups of producers is justified.

32 The reply to the national court must accordingly be that examination of the ques­ tion submitted has not revealed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the second and third subparagraphs of Article 6(5) of Council Regulation N o 2333/92.

Costs

33 The costs incurred by the French Government, the Council of the European U n i o n 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 action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

I-5584

Kakouris Moitinho de Almeida Murray

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 December 1994.

R. Grass G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias

Registrar President

I - 5585