Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:916
Date: 2023-11-23
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Wine
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary C-354/22 – 1 
Case C-354/22 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
1 June 2022 
Referring court: 
Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
10 March 2022 
Applicant, respondent in first appeal and appellant on a point of law: 
Weingut A 
Defendant, appellant in first appeal and respondent in the appeal on a point 
of law: 
Land Rhineland-Palatinate 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Winemaking – Concepts of ‘estate’ and ‘estate-bottled’ – Leasing of vineyards – 
Rental of a winepress installation – Supervision of the winepressing by employees 
of the lessor – Lessor’s own interest in the winepressing 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Can winemaking have been entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-
growing holding within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) 
of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 if the pressing takes place in a winepress 
installation which has been rented from another wine-growing holding for 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-354/22 
 
2  
24 hours and is exclusively at the disposal of the eponymous wine-growing 
holding during that period? 
2. If that question is answered in the affirmative, is it necessary that the 
pressing be carried out or at least supervised on-site by employees of the 
eponymous wine-growing holding, or can the pressing also be carried out by 
employees of the wine-growing holding renting out the winepress installation in 
accordance with the instructions of the eponymous wine-growing holding? 
3. If the pressing can also be carried out by employees of the wine-growing 
holding renting out the winepress installation, can they be given the authorisation 
to intervene in the pressing on the basis of an individual decision in the event of 
unexpected problems? 
4. Is attribution of the winemaking to the eponymous wine-growing holding 
precluded if the wine-growing holding which rents out the winepress installation 
and carries out the winepressing has an interest of its own in the manner in which 
the winepressing is carried out, because a yield- and quality-dependent 
supplement per hectolitre of Kabinett/Spätlese/Auslese wine on top of the area-
based exploitation fee is agreed in the vineyard exploitation agreement which has 
also been concluded with that holding? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018, in 
particular Article 54 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17 December 2013, in particular Article 122 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Germany: Weinverordnung (Wine Regulation), in particular Paragraph 38 
Austria: Bundesgesetz über den Verkehr mit Wein und Obstwein (Federal Law on 
trade in wine and fruit wine), in particular Paragraph 22; Verordnung des 
Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft 
über die Bezeichnung von Weinen (Regulation of the Federal Minister for 
Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water Management on the designation 
of wines), in particular Paragraph 2 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant is the proprietor of a wine-growing holding in the Mosel wine-
growing region. She produces wine not only from the grapes of the vineyards that 
she owns, but also from leased vineyards. She leased vineyards from wine-
WEINGUT A 
 
3 
growing holding B and concluded an exploitation agreement with the lessor, on 
the basis of which the vineyard is worked in accordance with her instructions. The 
exploitation fee is an area-based amount as well as a yield- and quality-dependent 
supplement – graded according to wine type: Kabinett, Spätlese or Auslese. In 
addition, the applicant rented the winepress installation of the exploiting holding 
for a period of 24 hours each year. During that time, the winepress installation is 
available exclusively for the processing of the grapes from the leased vineyards. 
The winepressing is carried out by the exploiting holding in accordance with the 
applicant’s oenological specifications and the must is filled into tanks, which are 
also rented and are subsequently collected by employees of the applicant. 
Following the action for a declaration brought by the applicant, the 
Verwaltungsgericht Trier (Administrative Court, Trier) ruled, on 16 May 2019, 
that the applicant is entitled to use the indications ‘Weingut A.’ (Estate A) and 
‘Gutsabfüllung’ (Estate-bottled) and may not be prohibited from doing so by the 
defendant. Following the appeal on the merits brought by the defendant, the 
Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Higher Administrative Court, 
Rhineland-Palatinate) varied the judgment and dismissed the action by the 
contested judgment on the appeal on the merits delivered on 12 August 2020. The 
applicant brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment before the 
referring court – the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court). 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
2 The dispute concerns the use of the designations ‘Weingut’ (estate) and 
‘Gutsabfüllung’ (estate-bottled). The matter in dispute is whether the pressing of 
grapes in a winepress installation rented by the eponymous wine-growing holding 
for 24 hours fulfils the requirement under EU law whereby ‘winemaking is 
entirely carried out on that holding’. 
3 In support of her appeal on a point of law, the applicant submits that the judgment 
on the appeal on the merits misconstrued the content of Article 54(1) of Delegated 
Regulation 2019/33. According to the applicant, the designation ‘Weingut’ 
(estate) was merely an indication of commercial origin. The decisive factor was 
that the wine production took place under the actual direction and exclusive 
responsibility of a single holder. Such a holder was responsible for the quality of 
the product. By contrast, the place where the winemaking physically took place 
was irrelevant. Therefore, the renting of a winepress installation and the carrying 
out of the winepressing on the basis of the instructions of the owner of the wine-
growing estate also met the prescribed requirements. Moreover, grape pressing 
was usually fully automated and did not require any instructions during the 
pressing process. It was therefore not necessary for the applicant or one of her 
employees to sit next to the fully automated press. The inclusion of the word 
‘entirely’ did not change that interpretation. It could not be inferred from the 
recitals that that word was intended to make the requirements more stringent. 
Accordingly, in Austria, for example, winemaking by means of pressing on a 
contract basis was not detrimental for designation purposes. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-354/22 
 
4  
4 The defendant takes the view that the applicant was not permitted to use the 
designations ‘Weingut’ (estate) and ‘Gutsabfüllung’ (estate-bottled) for the wine 
pressed on the premises of the exploiting holding. The defendant submits that, in 
order to do so, the winemaking must be carried out on a separate and physically 
and organisationally distinguishable wine-growing estate. Conditions for this 
include the independence of the operating facilities and the use of the estate’s own 
staff. The fact that the winepress installation was rented on a merely short-term 
basis means that those requirements were not met. The appeal on a point of law 
misconstrued the concept of ‘holding’. Although there was not a uniform 
definition for that concept, all definitions had in common the fact that both a 
location-based and organisational/technical component was required. However, 
the operations of the exploiting holding could not be attributed to the applicant; 
rather, she used the material and human resources of another holding to make the 
wine at issue. The conclusion of a rental agreement for a period of only 24 hours 
amounted to nothing more than pressing on a contract basis. This was also 
apparent from the fact that the winepressing was carried out by the exploiting 
holding under her instructions, and that holding bore the risk in that regard and – 
by virtue of the contractually agreed quality-dependent fee – also had an interest 
of its own in the organisation of the winepressing. Contrary to the view taken by 
the applicant, the inclusion of the word ‘entirely’ made the requirements under EU 
law more stringent. The case-law of the Court cited was not relevant because it 
did not concern winepressing but rather bottling. However, EU law distinguished 
between winemaking/production on the one hand and bottling/packaging on the 
other. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
5 The applicant seeks a declaration that she is entitled to label the wine at issue with 
the indications ‘Weingut A.’ (Estate A) and ‘Gutsabfüllung’ (Estate-bottled) and 
that the defendant may not prohibit her from doing so. The relevant legislation is 
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 – most recently amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 – and the 
regulation adopted to supplement it, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2019/33 of 17 October 2018, in the current version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2021/1375 of 11 June 2021. In accordance with Article 122(1) of Regulation 
No 1308/2013, in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of 
Delegated Regulation 2019/33, the terms listed in Annex VI – and therefore also 
the designation ‘Weingut’ (estate) in Germany – may only be used if the 
grapevine product is made exclusively from grapes harvested in vineyards 
exploited by that holding and the winemaking is entirely carried out on that 
holding. German national law does not provide for any further requirements for 
the use of the designation ‘Weingut’. In accordance with Paragraph 38(5) of the 
Wine Regulation, in conjunction with point 1 of Paragraph 38(4) and 
Paragraph 38(3) thereof, those requirements also apply to the use of the 
WEINGUT A 
 
5 
designation ‘Gutsabfüllung’ (estate-bottled). The question as to whether the 
winemaking ‘is entirely carried out on that holding’ if the eponymous wine-
growing holding has the wine pressed from grapes from leased vineyards in a 
winepress installation rented from the exploiting holding for 24 hours cannot be 
answered with sufficient clarity on the basis of the legislation and Court’s case-
law. 
6 From the outset, there appears to be uncertainty as to whether the renting of the 
winepress installation from another wine-growing holding for 24 hours is 
sufficient. Delegated Regulation 2019/33 does not contain a definition for the 
concept of ‘holding’. Article 3(3) of Regulation No 1308/2013, on which 
Delegated Regulation 2019/33 is based, refers in that regard to Regulation 
No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 
2013. In Article 4(1)(b) of that regulation, ‘holding’ is defined as all the units used 
for agricultural activities and managed by a farmer situated within the territory of 
the same Member State. It is not apparent from the provision what requirements 
are to be imposed on ‘management’ and whether rental for only 24 hours can be 
sufficient. 
7 The Court has clarified the circumstances under which a production unit that is 
only leased is to be attributed to a holding and is managed by the holder. 
According to the Court, the decisive factor is, in particular, whether the holder 
enjoys a degree of autonomy sufficient for the carrying-out of his or her activity 
(judgments of 14 October 2010, C-61/09 [EU:C:2010:606], Landkreis Bad 
Dürkheim, paragraph 62; and of 2 July 2015, C-422/13 [EU:C:2015:438], Wree, 
paragraph 44). Although the holder does not have to have unlimited power over 
the area in question, he or she must have a certain amount of discretion in the 
conduct of his or her activities (judgment of 2 July 2015, C-684/13 
[EU:C:2015:439], Demmer, paragraphs 61 and 62). The activity of the holder that 
is relevant for the purposes of attribution must not be excessively hampered by the 
intensity, nature, duration or timing of other types of activities pursued 
simultaneously (judgment of 2 July 2015, C-684/13, Demmer, paragraphs 69 and 
70). Only then can it be assumed that he or she independently operates or manages 
the leased facilities (judgment of 15 January 1991, C-341/89 [EU:C:1991:11], 
Ballmann, paragraph 15). Those requirements appear more likely to militate 
against the attribution of a winepress installation rented for only 24 hours to the 
operations of the eponymous wine-growing holding. Within the regulatory 
framework of wine law, those standards must be construed narrowly. This is 
because the attribution of grapevine products bearing a protected designation of 
origin or protected geographical indication to a particular wine-growing holding 
may constitute a higher quality indication for consumers and an added value for 
producers (recital 48 of Delegated Regulation 2019/33). 
8 The wording of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 
2019/33 also indicates the need for a close connection between the operating 
facilities and the eponymous wine-growing holding. This is because that provision 
requires not only that the winemaking take place on the owner’s holding but also 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-354/22 
 
6  
that the wine production ‘entirely’ take place on that holding. This expresses the 
requirement of a particularly close connection between the operating facilities and 
the eponymous wine-growing holding. 
9 The legislative history of the regime also indicates that attribution is to be 
construed narrowly. While the requirement for the designation ‘Weingut’ (estate) 
since the regime in Article 4(3) of Commission Regulation No 1608/76 of 4 June 
1976 had only required that ‘the wine making process was carried out at such 
vineyard’, the wording adopted by Article 57(1)(b) of Commission Regulation 
No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 entailed – at least when construed literally – a more 
stringent regime. Since then, it has been necessary that winemaking ‘entirely’ take 
place on that holding. That regime has been maintained by the second 
subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33. The recitals no 
longer base attribution on the fact ‘that all the stages of production have been 
carried out under the supervision and responsibility of the same natural or legal 
person’ (as was previously the case in recital 27 of Commission Regulation 
No 997/81 of 26 March 1981). Recital 48 of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 does 
not contain a corresponding reference to the person responsible for the 
winemaking. Rather, the only connecting factor is that ‘all the winemaking 
processes’ are carried out in the holding specified. The spirit and purpose of the 
regime therefore appears to be the protection of the designation of wine-growing 
holdings that exploit vineyards themselves and ensure that winemaking takes 
place entirely from a single source. Recital 48 of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 
links this to the consumers’ expectation that the wine is of a higher quality. They 
would be misled if parts of the winemaking process were outsourced to a location 
not physically attributable to the holding (see recital 34 of Delegated Regulation 
2019/33). 
10 The Court’s decisions on wine law that were cited by the applicant do not 
contribute to clarifying the question at issue. It is not possible to infer from the 
judgment of 18 October 1988 – C-311/87 [EU:C:1988:483], Goldenes 
Rheinhessen v Land Rheinland-Pfalz – any statements relating to the question 
which is relevant in the present case. The decision concerned only bottling, not 
winemaking. Nor do the statements in the judgment of 29 June 1994 – C-403/92 
[EU:C:1994:269], Chateau – come to anything. It is true that, according to that 
decision, it does not follow from the Community rules that wine-growers must 
themselves be the owners of wine-making premises. However, that statement was 
concerned with a distinction from ownership by a cooperative which itself 
functioned as a ‘holding’ (see paragraph 19). It is not possible to infer from the 
judgment any statements of relevance to the situation in the present case, because, 
in the case in that judgment, the cooperative had harvested its grapes on its own 
vineyards and made the wine on its own premises. The same applies to the 
reference to the fact that the Court only required reliable procedures to avoid 
mixing of the grapes. In that respect too, the statements related to the 
particularities of wine production by a cooperative. They do not provide any 
indications regarding the situation in the present dispute because the cooperative 
was the owner of the premises in which the winemaking took place. 
WEINGUT A 
 
7 
11 The present Chamber takes the view that it therefore appears uncertain whether, 
on the basis of the standards set out above, it can be assumed that a winepress 
installation which is only rented for 24 hours can be attributed to the operations of 
the eponymous wine-growing holding. As the defendant emphasises, the use of 
the rented winepress installation on only a very short-term and sporadic basis 
militates against such an assumption. In view of the coherence of the 
requirements, however, there are doubts as to that outcome. This is because, if the 
leasing of vineyards which are located at a considerable distance from the 
eponymous wine-growing holding is not detrimental for designation purposes, it 
would appear logical for the pressing also to be carried out on-site in order to 
avoid having to transport the grapes. This gives rise to the question as to whether 
the eponymous wine-growing holding cannot rent the winepress installation as 
well. An indication militating in favour of it being able to do so is that joint use of 
operating facilities is common in wine production and is commercially sensible. It 
is not apparent why rental beyond the period required for the specific pressing 
should be necessary. If the applicant were to use a mobile piece of equipment for 
the pressing, that piece of equipment would not be used for any longer than that 
period of time either. 
12 The applicant rightly stated that, in Austria, ‘processes carried out on a contract 
basis such as production, pressing or filtration on a contract basis’ are expressly 
permitted and declared as not being detrimental for designation purposes by 
Paragraph 22(2) of the Federal Law on trade in wine and fruit wine (BGBl. I, 
Austria, No 111/2009), as most recently amended by the Amending Law of 
29 May 2019 (BGBl. I, Austria, No 48/2019), in conjunction with Paragraph 2(1) 
and point 1 of Paragraph 2(2) of the Regulation of the Federal Minister for 
Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water Management on the designation 
of wines (BGBl. II, Austria, No 111/2011). Attribution of operating facilities to 
the eponymous wine-growing holding on the strict basis referred to above 
therefore does not appear to be required in Austria. A preliminary ruling by the 
Court is therefore required to be able to bring about Union-wide clarification of 
the questions at issue. 
13 If the winepress installation rented for 24 hours can be attributed to the applicant’s 
holding, the additional question arises as to whether the winepressing must be 
carried out or at least supervised on-site by the applicant’s own staff. According to 
the factual findings in the contested judgment on the appeal on the merits, the 
lease did not unconditionally guarantee that all stages of the wine production must 
take place under the direction and responsibility of the same natural or legal 
person. Rather, the lease provided that the pressing could take place in the 
presence of both the producer and the exploiting holding authorised thereby to 
supervise the process from a technical point of view. Accordingly, the 
responsibility for the pressing process was placed, on an alternative basis, in the 
hands of the exploiting holding. The applicant’s technical supervision and right to 
issue instructions did not change this, because, while present, the exploiting 
holding was granted the right to intervene in the winepressing at any time. It could 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-354/22 
 
8  
therefore make its own decisions independently of the applicant and also had to do 
so if problems arose. 
14 If the applicant’s claim does not already fail on the ground that pressing of wine in 
a winepress installation rented for 24 hours cannot be considered to be 
winemaking entirely carried out on her holding, it must therefore be clarified what 
requirements are to be imposed on the pressing process in terms of staff. In 
particular, the question arises as to whether the presence of the applicant or one of 
her employees during the pressing process is required. According to the case-law 
of the Court, a designation is intended to guarantee ‘that the main stages involved 
in the process of making that wine, namely those between harvesting and wine 
production, have been carried out under the actual direction, close and continuous 
supervision and exclusive responsibility of a wine-grower with whom the quality 
of the product can be associated’ (judgment of 29 June 1994, C-403/92, Chateau, 
paragraph 15). Those statements, which refer to ‘actual’ direction and 
‘continuous’ supervision, might militate in favour of a requirement of mandatory 
presence and against the sufficiency of a mere right to issue instructions. They are 
in line with the previous decision on the indication ‘Erzeugerabfüllung’ (bottled 
by the producer), in which the Court had stated that it was necessary that 
‘bottling … must have been performed by the producer himself’ (judgment of 
18 October 1988, C-311/87, Goldenes Rheinhessen v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, 
paragraph 15). On the basis of that understanding, the requirement contained in 
the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 would 
be taken into account by the fact that independent operation of the installation is 
ensured by the eponymous wine-growing holding. If a mere right to issue 
instructions were sufficient, it would also not be apparent why the provision of 
services on a contract basis should be impermissible. The Court proceeded on that 
basis with regard to bottling (judgment of 18 October 1988, C-311/87, Goldenes 
Rheinhessen v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, paragraph 17). However, the 
abovementioned requirements of the judgement in Case C-403/92 of 29 June 1994 
might also be understood in the sense of functional equivalence. There would also 
be actual direction and continuous supervision if the eponymous wine-growing 
holding specified all the parameters relevant to the pressing and monitored 
compliance with those standards. This would achieve parallelism with the 
requirements imposed in the case where a leased vineyard is exploited. 
15 The question also arises as to whether, if the pressing can also be carried out by 
employees of the wine-growing holding renting out the winepress installation, the 
employees can be given the authorisation to intervene in the pressing on the basis 
of an individual decision in the event of problems. The decisions to be taken on an 
independent basis – that is to say, without being bound by decisions of the 
eponymous wine-growing holding – by the staff of the wine-growing holding 
renting out the winepress installation may interrupt the actual direction and 
continuous supervision by the eponymous estate. On the other hand, the 
eponymous holding’s own staff would also have to take independent decisions in 
the event of problems. 
WEINGUT A 
 
9 
16 Lastly, there is the question as to whether, if the assumption of responsibility by 
way of instructions is sufficient in principle, something else must apply where the 
wine-growing holding which rents out the winepress installation and carries out 
the winepressing has an interest of its own in the manner in which the 
winepressing is carried out, because a yield- and quality-dependent supplement 
per hectolitre of Kabinett/Spätlese/Auslese wine on top of the area-based 
exploitation fee is agreed in the vineyard exploitation agreement which has also 
been concluded with that wine-growing holding. If such a yield- and quality-
dependent supplement leads to the exploiting holding having an interest of its own 
in the manner in which the pressing is carried out and bearing an economic risk of 
its own, this could conflict with the assumption that the eponymous wine-growing 
holding bears exclusive responsibility (see judgments of 18 October 1988, 
C-311/87, Goldenes Rheinhessen v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, paragraph 17; and of 
12 October 2016, C-340/15 [EU:C:2016:764], Nigl and Others, paragraph 28). It 
would, where appropriate, be for the court ruling on the merits to determine 
whether the supplement has such effects or whether its amount is decisively 
determined by the quantity and quality of the grapes harvested and not the 
pressing thereof.