C-308/97

3. The facts are stated very briefly in the order for reference. In 1991 and 1992 the (b) ordered him to pay a fine of ITL 2 763 100 plaintiff planted, without administrative and to grub out the offending vineyard.

* Original language: Spanish. 1 — OJ 1987 L 84, p. I.

I - 7686

MANFREDI v REGIONE PUGLIA

5. Mr Manfredi appealed against the admin- out in its very lengthy preamble. 3 So far as istrative decision to the Pretore di Bari who, the prohibition on planting new vineyards is in view of the doubt as to the interpretation concerned, the legislation has undergone a of the Community law on which the penalty number of changes, which I shall now sum- was based, has asked the Court whether the marise. prohibition on the planting of new vines laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) N o 822/87 of 16 March 1987 also applies to vineyards intended for the produc- tion of table grapes. (i) The situation prior to Regulaton No 822/87: the prohibition and exceptions to it up to 1990

Community law

I - 7687

OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-308/97

this general prohibition until 31 August 1990 11. Article 6(2) permitted the Member States and, at the same time, removed the exception to authorise certain other new plantings in for table grape varieties with effect from 1 respect of specified areas intended for certain May 1984. It is true that the amended version purposes, but these did not include the allowed specified authorisations to be granted planting of vineyards for table grapes. for new planting of certain types of vine, but they did not include those intended for table grapes.

(iii) The position from 1990 to 1996

(ii) The codification effected by Regulation No 822/87

12. The general prohibition on planting new vines in force until 31 August 1990 was again 10. In codifying the previous provisions, extended to 31 August 1996 by Article 1 of Article 6(1) of Regulation N o 822/87 pro- Council Regulation (EEC) N o 1325/90 of 14 vided as follows: May 1990 amending Regulation N o 822/87. 6 As, pursuant to Article 2 thereof, this regula- tion entered into force on 1 September 1990, there was no interruption in the prohibition on planting before and after 31 August 1990.

14. The preamble to Regulation N o 1325/90 The reply to the question from the national justified the continuation of the general ban court as follows: 'The ban on new planting laid down in Article 6 of Regulation N o 822/87 ... expires at the end of the 1989/90 wine year; ... in view of the structural surpluses affecting the sector, arrangements for the voluntary abandonment of wine-growing areas on pay- ment of a premium to absorb that surplus were introduced to last until 1995/96; ... in order not to cancel out the effects of the 16. First of all, it is necessary to establish the abandonment measure, the ban on new period to which the question relates. The planting and the accompanying derogations, Court is asked to interpret the Community with the exception of that referring to certain rules as they stood in 1991 and 1992. Con- quality wines psr, in respect of which the sideration of the changes in the legislation extension may be limited to a single year from 1979 to 1996 may offer some reliable pending the introduction of definitive arrange- guidance in interpretation, but it must not be ments, should be extended until at least the forgotten that the material events (and, there- same date ... .' 7 fore, the legislation applicable ratione tem- poris) are confined to 1991 and 1992.

The Italian penal legislation 17. An analysis of the Community provisions set out in the preceding paragraphs shows the following:

— Originally the prohibition on planting new vines, which was introduced in 1979 and 15. Article 4(3) of Decree-Law N o 370/1987, amended in 1980, did not prevent the converted into Law N o 460/1987, lays down planting of varieties intended for table a fine 'for any person who contravenes the grapes. These, by way of exception, ben- provisions concerning new planting of vines efited from permissive arrangements until referred to in Articles 6 and 8 of Regulation 1 May 1984, as is clear from the 1980 (EEC) N o 822/87' and requires the vines amended version of Article 30 of Regula- wrongfully planted to be grubbed out. tion N o 337/79. 8

20. In 1991 and 1992, therefore, the ban on new vines included those intended for the production of table grapes. In view of the situation in the wine market, the Community legislature did not consider it appropriate to 18. I think it is important to emphasise the exempt them from the general prohibition (as change in the trend of the legislation, the key had occurred in previous years), so that it year for which is 1984. Until then, the deci- covered also varieties intended for table grapes. sion to prohibit new planting of vines had Furthermore, the ban was consistent with expressly excluded (always by way of a spe- another series of measures adopted at the cific exception to the wider general ban) vari- same time (i. e. premiums for grubbing out eties intended for table grapes. However, from vines producing table grapes) to limit surplus May 1984 the exception was withdrawn and production in the sector. consequently the planting of vines for table grapes was brought within the general prohi- bition. The new direction was not only reflected in the actual wording of Regulation N o 1208/84, to which I have already referred, but was expressly justified in the preamble to the regulation, the eighth recital of which states that 'since the present table grape pro- duction exceeds requirements, the ban on new 21. The actual wording, the intrinsic meaning planting should be extended to all vines'. 11 of the provision, the declared intention of its author and the incorporation of that inten- tion in a unitary framework of structural 9 — See paragraph 9. measures all point to the same thing: the ban 10 — See paragraph 12. applying in 1991 and 1992 was strict and, 11 — The preamble adds: '... it is, however, appropriate that provi- unlike the previous ban from 1979 to 1984, sion be made for derogations to be granted for areas intended for the production of quality wine psr for which demand the exceptions to it had nothing to do with could by far exceed supply'. Consequently the exception docs not contemplate table grape varieties. table grapes.

25. If during the wine years 1988/89 to 1995/96 premiums were granted for the per- manent abandonment of wine-growing areas intended for the production of table grapes, it is logical that new planting of the same grapes should not be authorised during that 23. From the viewpoint of the inclusion of period. I should like to bring out the paral- the ban in a coherent system of agricultural lels between the two aspects: policy measures, the conclusion is also in favour of the interpretation which I propose. An authorisation to plant new vines intended for table grapes would be inconsistent with a Community policy of premiums for grub- bing out vines of that kind. It would be (a) O n the one hand, the restrictive policy illogical to authorise the planting of such vines aims to reduce the production of table and at the same time to offer economic aid as grapes by means of simultaneous action an incentive for grubbing them out. in relation to existing vines of that type (the grubbing-up of which is encouraged) and future vines (new planting of which is banned). This was the line taken from 1984 to 1996.

24. The aim of reducing the surplus produc- tion of table grapes is apparent in the policy (b) O n the other hand, the policy in favour of aid for grubbing out vines. Council Regu- of the production of table grapes lifts the lation (EEC) N o 1442/88 of 24 May 1988 on ban on new planting and also abolishes the granting, for the 1988/89 to 1995/96 wine the measures encouraging the grubbing-up

12 — See paragraphs 9 and 10. 13 — OJ 1988 L 132, p. 3.

29. In my view this argument must be rejected for several reasons. The first has to with 27. The Commission and the French Gov- ernment, which has participated in the pre- liminary ruling proceedings, agree with the 14 — The national court points out that the Italian courts (in par- ticular, the Regional Administrative Court, Sicily, and various interpretation which I propose. The Greek magistrates whose judgments are cited in the order for refer- Government and the plaintiff in the main ence) have taken different, and even conflicting, approaches to the interpretation of the provision in question. In their proceedings, however, have raised arguments observations, the Commission and the Italian Government also refer to these differences of interpretation. This shows against it while the Italian Government appears the need for a uniform interpretation of the Community to consider that the ban does not apply, provision and justifies the reference for a preliminary ruling which has rightly been made by the Pretore di Bari. On the although it has not taken a definite position other hand, during the hearing the plaintiff cited a judgment of the Corte di Cassazione of 20 march 1997 ( N o 7625/97, on the question. In the order for reference R G N 3106/96) which, giving judgment at last instance, the national court for its part sets out four found it unnecessary to obtain a preliminary ruling and decided that the ban did not apply, solely on the ground of possible arguments summarising the opinions the 16th recital in the preamble to Regulation N o 822/87.

32. As regards the argument derived from the non-inclusion of table grapes in Article 1(2) of Regulation N o 822/87, that is to say in the list of products regulated by the organi- sation of the wine market, the references in the legislation which I have mentioned above show precisely the opposite. That omission must not be considered in isolation, but in the overall context of a body of legislation which is certainly complex, but contains spe- cific provisions (with regard to table grapes) 30. Indeed, the successive regulations adopted which show beyond doubt that Community within the framework of the common organi- intervention in the wine sector also covers the sation of the market in wine have introduced production and other secondary aspects of rules intended to regulate various aspects of grapes of that variety. the production of table grapes. The Commu- nity legislation on the wine-growing sector includes numerous references to table grapes either for the purpose of classifying them, 16 19 — Article 6(1) of Regulation N o 822/87, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) N o 1592/96 of 30 July 1996 (OJ 1996 or, exceptionally, authorising their new plant- L 206, p. 31), provides as follows: ing, 17 or limiting their production, 18 or pro- 'Until 31 July 1997, wine made from grapes belonging to varieties not listed as wine grape varieties in the classifica- tion of vine varieties for the administrative unit where they were harvested, and which is not exported during the wine year concerned, shall be distilled by a date to be determined. Except by derogation, it may not be moved except to a dis- 15 — Indeed, Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) N o 2389/89 tillery. of 24 July 1989 on the general rules for the classification of As from 1 August 1997, the grapes referred to in the first vine varieties (OJ 1989 L 232, p. 1) states that "one and the subparagraph may not be turned into wine.' same variety may, exceptionally, be classified as both a table 20 — The original version of Article 36(1) of Regulation N o grape variety and a wine grape variety*. 822/87 was worded as follows: 'Wine made from grapes 16 — See Article 2 of Regulation N o 2389/89, cited above. belonging to varieties not listed as wine grape varieties in the classification of vine varieties for the administrative unit 17 — See the provisions cited in paragraph 8. where they were harvested, and which is not exported shall 18 — See the eighth recital in the preamble to Regulation N o be distilled before the end of the wine year in which it was 1208/84, set out in paragraph 18 above. produced. ...'

37. In short, the addition of the last sentence in the 16th recital in the preamble to Regulation N o 822/87 resulted from the error 35. This recital formerly appeared in the pre- of including, in a consolidating measure, part amble to Regulation N o 454/80 cited above, 21 of the preamble of an earlier regulation, over- looking the fact that the positive requirement to which it related had been previously 21 — Sec footnote 4. amended.

I - 7694

MANFREDI v REGIONE PUGLIA

(iii) The effect of the new Regulation No (although in return it prohibits the making of 1592/96 wine from them, 23 which was previously allowed as an exception).

23 — See the amendment to Article 36(1) of Regulation N o 822/87, 22 — The preamble gives the following reasons: 'whereas all new planángofvinesis prohibited until 31 August 1996; whereas, to which I refer in footnotes 19 and 20. in view of the situation in the wine sector market the existing 24 — OJ 19% L 206, p. 36. ban should be extended by two wine years, pending Council 25 — Support for this is to be found in the preamble to Regula- decisions on reforming the sector; whereas, however, on the tion N o 1595/96: *because the areas intended for the produc- one hand there should not be included in this ban areas tion of grapes classified solely as table grapes are not included intended for producing table grapes and, on the other hand, in the scope of the ban on any new vine planting within the derogations from the Dan should be introduced for certain meaning of Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) N o 822/87, it is wines which are in demand on the market on account of necessary to exclude those areas from entitlement to perma- their qualitative characteristics'. nent abandonment premiums'.

I - 7695

OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-308/97

Conclusion

47. I therefore p r o p o s e that t h e C o u r t reply as follows t o the question referred b y the P r e t o r e di Bari:

D u r i n g 1991 a n d 1992 Article 6(1) of C o u n c i l R e g u l a t i o n ( E E C ) N o 822/87 of 16 M a r c h 1987 o n t h e c o m m o n o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e m a r k e t i n w i n e p r o h i b i t e d n e w p l a n t i n g of vines i n t e n d e d for t h e p r o d u c t i o n of table grapes.

I - 7696