Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:320
Date: 2022-04-28
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Wine
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Czechia

summary of the relevant legislative framework in the following points of this Opinion, before going on to consider the relevance of the V I 1 document to a determination – such as that to be made in the main proceedings – as to the liability of a merchant. 2. The relevant legislative framework 35. First, Regulation No 1308/2013 lays down, amongst other things, the rules relating to oenological practices and methods of analysis, and the requirements for import of grapevine products. Article 80(2) of that regulation provides, essentially, that such products cannot be marketed in the European Union if they have undergone unauthorised oenological practices. Under Article 90(3)(a) and (b) of the same regulation, in order to import such products it is necessary to produce the following two documents: – one the one hand, a certificate evincing compliance with the oenological practices authorised by EU law or recommended and published by the OIV, drawn up by a competent body of the third country from which the product originates, included on a list to be made public by the Commission, in the product’s country of origin; – on the other hand, an analysis report drawn up by a body or department designated by the product’s country of origin. 36. Second, Regulation No 555/2008 makes provision as to the documents required upon import of the product in question, amongst other things. Article 40 of that regulation provides that the abovementioned certificate and analysis report are to form a single document, which is defined by Article 43 of the same regulation as the ‘V I 1 document’. Article 43 also provides, in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, that this document is to be drawn up, for each consignment intended for import into the Union, on a ‘V I 1 form’ corresponding to the specimen shown in Annex IX to that regulation. This form, which is reproduced in point 16 of this Opinion, contains a specimen certificate in tick-box form by which the competent body certifies, amongst other things, that the inspected product has been produced using oenological practices either recommended and published by the OIV, or authorised by the European Union. It also contains a partly completed specimen analysis report, on which the total and actual alcoholic strengths by volume are to be indicated. 37. Pursuant to Article 47 of Regulation No 555/2008, the V I 1 document is handed over, on completion of the customs formalities required for the products to be released into free circulation, to the competent customs authorities of the country of importation. 3. The relevance of the V I 1 document 38. As regards the relevance of the V I 1 document to the determination of the liability of a merchant for marketing wine which does not conform to the oenological practices authorised by EU law, it is necessary, in my view, to distinguish between the rules relating to the import and release into free circulation of the product in question within the European Union, (17) and the rules relating to the marketing of that product on the Union market. For the purposes of import and release into free circulation of the product, it is sufficient to verify its origin, authenticity and qualitative characteristics at the point in time when it is imported, by means, in particular, of documents drawn up by bodies authorised under EU legislation – but as regards the marketing of the same product, there is a requirement, amongst other things, for it to conform to those oenological practices at all times. 39. While the presentation of the V I 1 document to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the customs formalities are completed enables the product in question to be released into free circulation, it is not in itself sufficient to conclude that the product complies at all times with the oenological practices authorised by EU law, as is required if the product is to be sold on the EU market. As the Commission states, given that wine is a complex product which is sensitive to external conditions in many respects, including during transport, it may also fail to conform to EU standards as a result of events taking place after the V I 1 document has been issued. For this reason, further quality checks – for which the importer is responsible (18) – are required to be carried out periodically. 40. In other words, it seems clear to me that, in principle, compliance with the oenological practices authorised by EU law as regards the import and release into free circulation of wine – which is the subject of the certificate and analysis report contained in the V I 1 document – is not sufficient, by itself, to ensure conformity with those practices, in accordance with Article 80(2)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013, when that wine is marketed. 41. That having been said, given that the V I 1 document certifies, at the time of importation, that the consignment of wine conforms to the oenological practices authorised by EU law, it cannot be concluded that that document is a mere ‘administrative formality’ which has no relevance in determining the liability of a merchant for marketing that wine. In my view, the document may be taken into account by the competent national authorities, together with other relevant material, in considering the level of diligence shown by the wine merchant and, consequently, in deciding whether it can be exonerated from liability for offences such as those at issue in the main proceedings. 42. Undoubtedly, the relevance of the V I 1 document must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case, including for example the time that has passed since the issue of that document, the transport and other operations to which the relevant product may have been subject, and any other factor liable to affect the quality of that product. (19) In that regard, without wishing to trespass on the jurisdiction of the referring court, I would simply observe that in the light of the matters set out by the Czech Government, demonstrating that Vinařství U Kapličky ought to have been aware of the problematic nature of the wines it was importing (20) – and in so far as those matters are confirmed by the referring court – the V I 1 document is of very limited relevance in the present case. 43. In conclusion, I suggest that the answer to the first question referred should be that Article 90(3)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013 is to be interpreted as meaning that the certificate appearing on the V I 1 document, drawn up pursuant to Article 43 of Regulation No 555/2008 and stating that the product in question has been produced using oenological practices authorised by EU law, is not a mere ‘administrative condition’ for the entry of wine into the territory of the European Union, and may be taken into account as one of the relevant considerations in determining whether a wine merchant is liable for marketing wine which does not conform with such practices as required by Article 80(2)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013. B. The second question referred 1. Preliminary remarks 44. By its second question, the referring court is essentially asking whether EU law precludes national legislation under which a person can avoid liability for the offences at issue if the national authorities do not rebut the presumption arising by virtue of the certificate appearing on the V I 1 document, to the effect that the product in question has been produced in accordance with oenological practices which are authorised under EU law. 45. In that regard, the referring court interprets Paragraph 40(1) of Law No 321/2004 in the light of the case-law of the Ústavní soud (Constitutional Court), as meaning that the certificate appearing on the V I 1 document gives rise to a (rebuttable) presumption that the consignment of wine to which the certificate relates has been produced in accordance with oenological practices which are authorised by EU law. This ‘presumption of conformity’ would apply, it seems to me, not merely at the time of importation of the product in question, but for as long as it is marketed within the European Union. 46. The Czech Government considers that EU law does not permit a company such as Vinařství U Kapličky to avoid liability for the offences at issue on the basis of the V I 1 document alone, while the Commission submits that EU law does not preclude a national rule permitting a wine merchant trading in wine imported from Moldova to avoid liability for the offences at issue if it proves that it took every step which might have been required of it to avoid the commission of those offences, provided that such a national rule is not interpreted as meaning that the merchant can avoid such liability simply by producing a V I 1 document issued by the competent Moldovan authorities. 47. Before turning to consider whether a presumption of the kind envisaged by the referring court would be compatible with EU law, I think it may be useful to summarise the relevant legislative framework. 2. The relevant legislative framework 48. As stated in recital 4 of Regulation No 1308/2013, the penalties for non-compliance with the rules laid down by that regulation are provided for by Regulation No 1306/2013, which lays down, amongst other things, the rules governing management and control systems to be put in place by Member States in respect of the financing of CAP expenditure. Article 89(4) of Regulation No 1306/2013 provides that the Member States are to apply, in respect of infringements of EU rules in the wine sector, which include Article 80 of Regulation No 1308/2013, ‘proportionate, effective and dissuasive’ administrative penalties. The same provision stipulates, furthermore, that those penalties are not to apply in cases falling within Article 64(2)(d) of Regulation No 1306/2013, or, in other words, where the person concerned can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that he or she is not at fault for the non-compliance with obligations arising under the sectoral agricultural legislation, or where the competent authority is otherwise satisfied that the person concerned is not at fault. 49. I note that the rules concerning the liability of operators in the food sector and of Member States, together with the rules concerning the associated penalties, are also laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 178/2002 (21) and in Article 98 of Regulation No 555/2008, (22) which are not directly applicable in the present case. (23) 50. In any event, Article 89 of Regulation No 1306/2013, Article 17(2) of Regulation No 178/2002 and Article 98 of Regulation No 555/2008 lay down the same legal requirements, leaving it open to the Member States, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy, to provide for administrative penalties for infringement of the rules, including in relation to oenological practices, and requiring the national law penalties for infringement of EU law to be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. (24) 51. As regards the relevant national legislation, Paragraph 40(1) of Law No 321/2004 provides that a legal person is not liable for an administrative offence if it proves that it took every step which might have been required of it to avoid the infringement in question. 3. The interpretation of the relevant EU law 52. As I have observed in points 48 to 50 of this Opinion, the relevant EU law empowers the Member States to adopt administrative penalties for infringement of the rules on compliance with oenological practices, while requiring those penalties to be ‘proportionate, effective and dissuasive’. Furthermore, the second question referred does not relate to the penalties themselves, but to a procedural rule which essentially reverses the burden of proof, where a wine merchant is in possession of a V I 1 document, as to the establishment of the liability of that merchant for marketing a product which has undergone oenological practices not authorised by EU law. 53. In that regard, I would note that, under settled case-law of the Court, if there are no EU rules on the matter, it is for the national legal order of each Member State to establish such rules, under the principle of procedural autonomy, on condition, however, that those rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that they do not make it excessively difficult or impossible in practice to exercise the rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness). (25) 54. As regards the principle of effectiveness, which is a matter arising in the main proceedings, I would point out that under Article 89(4) of Regulation No 1306/2013, the Member States are to apply penalties, in the case of infringement of EU rules in the wine sector, which are to be ‘effective and dissuasive’. (26) Under EU law, it is necessary to verify that the rules for the implementation of those penalties, including any relevant procedural rules, do not run counter to that principle, this being a matter for the referring court to establish. At first sight, national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes it especially difficult – if not impossible – to establish that a wine merchant is liable for infringement of the rules concerning EU oenological practices, (27) is capable of affecting the effectiveness of the penalties laid down by that legislation, pursuant to EU law. 55. In the interests of identifying, for the benefit of the referring court, matters of EU law which will assist in the task of interpretation and enable that court to determine for itself whether the relevant national legislation is compatible with EU law, I would note first of all that, under Article 56(1)(d) of Regulation No 607/2009, an importer is a natural or legal person or group of such persons established within the Union assuming responsibility for bringing into circulation imported goods, and is responsible, in particular, for the conformity of such goods with the oenological practices of the European Union in accordance with Article 80(2)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013. 56. Second, I note that the interpretation of Paragraph 40(1) of Law No 321/2004 envisaged by the referring court involves, essentially, a reversal of the burden of proof with regard to the determination of whether a wine merchant is liable for marketing products which have undergone oenological practices not authorised by EU law, as referred to in Article 80(2)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013, such reversal being based entirely on the certificate appearing on the V I 1 document. (28) 57. Lastly, I note that under Article 90(3) of Regulation No 1308/2013, that certificate is produced for the purposes of importing the product in question and that, under Article 47 of Regulation No 555/2008, the document is handed over to the competent authorities on completion of the customs formalities required for putting that product into free circulation. As I observed in addressing the first question, (29) therefore, the certificate is not designed to confirm compliance with oenological practices authorised by EU law throughout the marketing of the product, in accordance with Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013. 58. In those circumstances, I doubt that a reversal of the burden of proof as to the liability of the person marketing the product in question, which shifts responsibility for checks on the quality of the product to the competent national authorities and makes it particularly difficult – if not impossible – to establish that that person is liable, can be based on a certificate, such as that appearing on the V I 1 document, confirming compliance with EU oenological practices at the time of import of a product such as wine, which is complex and sensitive to external conditions in many respects, including during transport, handling and other operations taking place after that time. It is however for the referring court to carry out the necessary checks. 59. In conclusion, I suggest that the answer to the second question referred should be that Article 89 of Regulation No 1306/2013 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a merchant importing wine from a third country is not liable for the non-conformity with oenological practices authorised by EU law of consignments of wine covered by a certificate appearing on a V I 1 document, if the national authorities are unable to rebut the ‘presumption of conformity’ arising by virtue of that document, where that presumption makes it particularly difficult – if not impossible – to establish that the merchant is liable, bearing in mind in particular that: – under Article 56(1)(d) of Regulation No 607/2009, an importer is a natural or legal person or group of such persons established within the Union assuming responsibility for bringing into circulation the imported goods; – the interpretation envisaged by the referring court of the national legislation essentially involves, a reversal of the burden of proof with regard to the determination of whether a wine merchant is liable for marketing products which have undergone oenological practices not authorised by EU law, such reversal being based entirely on the certificate appearing on the V I 1 document; – that certificate is not specifically designed to confirm compliance with oenological practices authorised by EU law throughout the marketing of that product, in accordance with Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013. V. Conclusion 60. In the light of the above considerations, I suggest that the Court should answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Krajský soud v Brně (Regional Court, Brno, Czech Republic) as follows: (1) Article 90(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, is to be interpreted as meaning that the certificate appearing on the V I 1 document, drawn up pursuant to Article 43 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, and stating that the product in question has been produced using oenological practices authorised by EU law, is not a mere ‘administrative condition’ for the entry of wine into the territory of the European Union, and may be taken into account as one of the relevant considerations in determining whether a wine merchant is liable for marketing wine which does not conform with authorised oenological practices as required by Article 80(2)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013. (2) Article 89 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a merchant importing wine from a third country is not liable for the non-conformity with oenological practices authorised by EU law of consignments of wine covered by a certificate appearing on a V I 1 document, if the national authorities are unable to rebut the ‘presumption of conformity’ arising by virtue of that document, where that presumption makes it particularly difficult – if not impossible – to establish that the merchant is liable, bearing in mind in particular that: – under Article 56(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products, the importer is a natural or legal person or group of such persons established within the Union assuming responsibility for bringing into circulation the imported goods; – the interpretation envisaged by the referring court of the national legislation essentially involves, a reversal of the burden of proof with regard to the determination of whether a wine merchant is liable for marketing products which have undergone oenological practices not authorised by EU law, such reversal being based entirely on the certificate appearing on the V I 1 document; – that certificate is not specifically designed to confirm compliance with oenological practices authorised by EU law throughout the marketing of that product, in accordance with Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013. 1 Original language: French. 2 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671). 3 Commission Regulation of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector (OJ 2008 L 170, p. 1). 4 That regulation repealed Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1). 5 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549, and corrigendum OJ 2016 L 130, p. 13). 6 Part II of Annex VII to the regulation concerns ‘Categories of grapevine products’, including ‘wine’, which is defined as ‘the product obtained exclusively from the total or partial alcoholic fermentation of fresh grapes, whether or not crushed, or of grape must’. 7 Annex VIII concerns the ‘oenological practices referred to in Article 80’. 8 These codes include, amongst other things, grape must and wine. 9 Regulation No 555/2008 has been amended by Article 52 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/273 of 11 December 2017 supplementing [Regulation No 1308/2013] as regards the scheme of authorisations for vine plantings, the vineyard register, accompanying documents and certification, the inward and outward register, compulsory declarations, notifications and publication of notified information, and supplementing [Regulation No 1306/2013] as regards the relevant checks and penalties, amending Commission Regulations [No 555/2008], (EC) No 606/2009 and (EC) No 607/2009 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 436/2009 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/560 (OJ 2018 L 58, p. 1). That provision repealed all the provisions of Regulation No 555/2008 referred to below, which are nevertheless applicable to the main proceedings ratione temporis. 10 Council Regulation of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2008 L 148, p. 1). This regulation was repealed by Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of the Council of 25 May 2009 amending Regulation No 1234/2007 (OJ 2009 L 154, p. 1). The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 491/2009 provides that references to Regulation No 479/2008 are to be construed as references to Regulation No 1234/2007, which was itself repealed by Regulation No 1308/2013. 11 Article 82 of Regulation No 479/2008 was replaced by Article 158a of Regulation No 1234/2007, which was itself replaced by Article 90 of Regulation No 1308/2013. 12 Commission Regulation of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (OJ 2009 L 193, p. 60). This regulation was repealed by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation No 1308/2013 as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, restrictions of use, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of protection, and labelling and presentation (OJ 2019 L 9, p. 2). Nonetheless, in view of the date of the facts at issue in the main proceedings, Regulation No 607/2009 remains applicable to the present case. 13 This provision appears in Chapter IV of the regulation, which is headed ‘Labelling and presentation’, within Section I, headed ‘Compulsory particulars’. 14 Article 59 of that regulation, headed ‘Compulsory particulars’, provided in paragraph (1)(e) and (f) that, amongst other things, labelling and presentation of wine marketed in the European Union or for export was required to include compulsory particulars of the bottler or, in the case of sparkling wine, aerated sparkling wine, quality sparkling wine or quality aromatic sparkling wine, the name of the producer or vendor, and an indication of the importer in the case of imported wines. Article 59 of that regulation was replaced, without amendment, by Article 118y of Regulation No 1234/2007, which was itself replaced by Article 119 of Regulation No 1308/2013. 15 Council Regulation of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), repealed by Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) (OJ 2008 L 145, p. 1), which was itself repealed by Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1). 16 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1). 17 I would point out that the EU legislation concerning the V I 1 document does not make a clear distinction between the use of that document for the purposes of importing the product in question and for its release into free circulation. While Article 90(3) of Regulation No 1308/2013 provides, amongst other things, that the import of wine is subject to the presentation of the certificate and analysis report which, under Articles 40 and 43 of Regulation No 555/2008, make up the V I 1 document, Article 47 of that regulation provides for that document to be handed over to the competent authorities on completion of the customs formalities required for the release into free circulation of the consignment to which it relates. 18 Article 56(1)(d) of Regulation No 607/2009 provides that for the purposes, inter alia, of application of Article 59(1)(f) of Regulation No 479/2008 (which corresponds at present to Article 119(1)(f) of Regulation No 1308/2013 – see footnote 14 to this Opinion), ‘importer’ means ‘a natural or legal person or group of such persons established within the [Union] assuming responsibility for bringing into circulation [imported] goods’ (my italics). 19 For example, it seems to me that while the certificate appearing on that document may have some relevance in verifying whether the importer was reasonably diligent at the time of releasing the relevant consignment of wine into free circulation, this is not so once the product has been transported or handled, or even after a certain time has passed since it was imported. 20 The Czech Government refers in particular to a penalty imposed on the company in respect of imported wines in 2014, and to the fact that the central inspectorate had expressed doubts as to the quality of certain imported wines, the extremely low price of the product in question and the ‘opaque’ sales arrangements under which it passed, before being retailed, between two companies managed by the same persons. 21 That article provides, in paragraph 1, that food business operators are to ensure compliance with the requirements of food law which are relevant to their activities and verify that such requirements are met, and, in paragraph 2, that the Member States are, amongst other things, to monitor and verify that the relevant requirements are fulfilled by food business operators and to lay down the rules on measures and penalties applicable to infringements of those rules, stipulating that the measures and penalties provided for are to be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’. 22 This provision requires the Member States, amongst other things, to provide for the application of sanctions at national level in relation to irregularities committed in respect of requirements set out in Regulation No 479/2008, now replaced by Regulation No 1308/2013 (see footnote 10 to this Opinion), which are ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ so that they provide adequate protection for the European Union’s financial interests. 23 As regards Article 17 of Regulation No 178/2002, the Court has already held that that provision constitutes a general rule of food law which is applicable only in so far as EU law does not lay down specific rules for the particular category of foodstuff (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 June 2005, HLH Warenvertrieb and Orthica, C‑211/03, C‑299/03 and C‑316/03 to C‑318/03, EU:C:2005:370, paragraphs 36 to 39). In my view, Article 89 of Regulation No 1306/2013 is a specific rule of that kind. As regards Regulation No 555/2008, as is apparent from Article 1 of that regulation, it lays down implementing rules concerning the application of certain provisions of Regulation No 479/2008, not including Article 27(4) of that regulation, which has essentially been replaced by Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 (see footnote 10 to this Opinion). 24 I would also refer to recital 39 of Regulation No 1306/2013, which states, amongst other things, that in cases of infringement of the sectoral agricultural legislation, where detailed rules on administrative penalties have not been laid down by Union legal acts, Member States should impose national penalties which should be effective, dissuasive and proportionate. 25 See judgment of 21 January 2016, Eturas and Others (C‑74/14, EU:C:2016:42, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited). 26 The penalties are also required to be ‘proportionate’ within the meaning of that provision, but I note that that requirement is not at issue in the present case. 27 The ‘presumption of conformity’ arising from a V I 1 document could be interpreted in such a way that, for the purposes of Paragraph 40(1) of Law No 321/2004, a legal person holding such a document has not failed to take any step which could have been required of it to avoid infringement of Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013, and is therefore not liable for infringement of that provision. In such a situation, while it is not impossible, in principle, for the competent authority to carry out its own analyses to establish whether the wine conforms to oenological practices authorised by EU law, it would be practically impossible for that authority to demonstrate that the wine merchant is liable if the latter has not acted in compliance with those practices. 28 That might lead to the person marketing a product in respect of which such a certificate had been issued not being required to carry out checks, which would be a matter for the national authorities alone. 29 See points 38 to 42 of this Opinion.