61982CO0042_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 42/82 R
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, JEAN-CLAUDE SECHE, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF ORESTE MONTALTO, A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT, JEAN MONNET BUILDING, KIRCHBERG,
APPLICANT,
AND
ITALIAN REPUBLIC, REPRESENTED BY ITS AGENT, ARNOLDO SQUILLANTE, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONTENTIOUS DIPLOMATIC AFFAIRS, TREATIES AND LEGISLATIVE MATTERS, AND IVO M . BRAGUGLIA, AVVOCATO DELLO STATO, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE ITALIAN EMBASSY,
INTERVENER,
V
FRENCH REPUBLIC, REPRESENTED BY ITS AGENT, NOEL MUSEUX, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE FRENCH EMBASSY,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION CONCERNING OBSTACLES TO THE IMPORTATION OF ITALIAN WINE INTO FRANCE,
Grounds
1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 5 FEBRUARY 1982 THE COMMISSION SUBMITTED, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 186 OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLE 83 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, AN APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES REQUIRING THE FRENCH REPUBLIC TO ADOPT THE INTERIM MEASURES NEEDED TO ENSURE THE FREE MOVEMENT OF WINE PRODUCTS PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE MAIN ACTION .
2 THE APPLICATION REFERS TO AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE COMMISSION AGAINST THE FRENCH REPUBLIC PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY BY APPLICATION LODGED ON 4 FEBRUARY 1982 SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, BY SUBJECTING CUSTOMS CLEARANCE, THAT IS TO SAY, RELEASE TO THE MARKET, OF ITALIAN TABLE WINES TO A PERIOD CONSIDERABLY IN EXCESS OF THE TIME NECESSARY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PERMISSIBLE SUBSTANTIVE FORMALITIES AND BY MAKING RELEASE TO THE MARKET SUBJECT TO A SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS, BY OMITTING TO COMMENCE PROMPTLY THE PROCEDURE FOR REGULARIZING CARRIAGE OPERATIONS IN RESPECT OF A NUMBER OF CONSIGNMENTS OF ITALIAN WINE AS SOON AS THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED FOR CLEARANCE AT ITS FRONTIER POSTS, BY MAKING THE REGULARIZATION OF CARRIAGE OPERATIONS IN RESPECT OF ITALIAN WINES HELD UP AT FRONTIER POSTS SUBJECT IN NUMEROUS CASES TO THE TRANSMISSION BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES OF THE DOCUMENTS OR OTHER EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THEIR CERTIFICATES ARE BASED AND BY DELAYING CLEARANCE EVEN IN CASES WHICH HAVE BEEN REGULARIZED, HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE COMMUNITY RULES APPLICABLE TO THE WINE SECTOR AND UNDER ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY .
3 THE MAIN ACTION WAS BROUGHT FOLLOWING TWO REASONED OPINIONS SENT BY THE COMMISSION TO THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT ON 2 AND 9 OCTOBER 1981 AFTER CONSIDERABLE DELAYS IN THE RELEASE TO THE MARKET OF WINES IMPORTED INTO FRANCE FROM ITALY DURING THE SUMMER OF 1981 AND AFTER LARGE QUANTITIES OF ITALIAN WINE HAD BEEN HELD UP AT VARIOUS FRONTIER POSTS . THOSE REASONED OPINIONS ARE CONCERNED ON THE ONE HAND WITH THE SYSTEMATIC ANALYSES CARRIED OUT BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES ON WINES IMPORTED FROM ITALY AND WHICH ARE
RELATED TO MEASURES OF SELF-RESTRAINT ADOPTED BY CERTAIN IMPORTERS IN FRANCE, AND ON THE OTHER HAND WITH THE PRACTICES OF THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES IN RELATION TO CERTAIN IRREGULARITIES IN THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS PRESENTED AT THE FRONTIER IN RESPECT OF CARRIAGE OPERATIONS IN RESPECT OF ITALIAN WINE .
4 IN REQUESTING THE COURT TO ORDER INTERIM MEASURES PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS THE COMMISSION IS SEEKING THE SUSPENSION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED NATIONAL PRACTICES . ON THE ONE HAND IT IS ASKING FOR THE SYSTEMATIC ANALYSES OF WINES AT THE FRONTIER TO BE SUSPENDED FORTHWITH AND TO BE REPLACED BY RANDOM CHECKS CARRIED OUT, AT EACH FRONTIER POST, AMONG ALL IMPORTERS IN PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER OF CONSIGNMENTS PRESENTED BY EACH OF THEM FOR IMPORTATION AND THAT ANY ANALYSES BE COMPLETED WITHIN A FORTNIGHT AT THE MOST . IT FURTHER REQUESTS THAT THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES BE ORDERED TO RELEASE IMMEDIATELY TO THE MARKET ALL CONSIGNMENTS OF WINE PRODUCTS PRESENTED FOR IMPORTATION AND THAT IN THE EVENT OF IRREGULARITY IN THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS SUCH RELEASE MAY BE DELAYED ONLY FOR THE TIME STRICTLY NECESSARY FOR REGULARIZING THE DOCUMENTS UNLESS THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUSPICION OF FRAUD REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE PRODUCTS OR THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY PROVISIONS IN RELATION TO THEIR COMPOSITION OR TO OENOLOGICAL PROCESSES .
5 ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT AN ORDER FOR INTERIM MEASURES IS TO BE CONDITIONAL UPON THERE BEING CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURES APPLIED FOR .
6 IT IS NECESSARY THEREFORE, TO EXAMINE WHETHER THOSE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE .
7 ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION AND THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT THE ANALYSES IN QUESTION AND THE PROCEDURES FOR CHECKING THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED IN REALITY TO PREVENT OR RESTRICT THE IMPORTATION OF WINES FROM ITALY . THOSE MEASURES WERE ADOPTED IN THE CONTEXT OF A COMMITMENT TO EXERCISE
SELF-RESTRAINT UNDERTAKEN BY CERTAIN FRENCH IMPORTERS WHOM THE FRENCH PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAD UNDERTAKEN TO SUPPORT BY SUBJECTING IMPORTATIONS MADE BY OTHER IMPORTERS TO PENALIZING DELAYS .
8 THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT, FOR ITS PART, MAINTAINS THAT IN CHECKING THE REGULARITY OF THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS AND THE QUALITY OF THE WINES IT IS ONLY FULFILLING ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THE COMMUNITY RULES IN RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH . IN THAT RESPECT IT REFERS TO CASES WHERE WINES IMPORTED FROM ITALY WERE POLLUTED .
9 IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT FOR YEARS THE FORMALITIES TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE WINES IMPORTED FROM ITALY WERE RELEASED TO THE MARKET DID NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SPECIAL DIFFICULTIES . IT WAS ONLY AFTER VIOLENT DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST IMPORTS OF ITALIAN WINE TOOK PLACE DURING THE SUMMER OF 1981 AND THE CHECKS WERE REINFORCED BY THE PRACTICES IN QUESTION AND LARGE QUANTITIES OF WINE WERE HELD UP AT THE FRONTIER .
10 THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES RELEASED CONSIGNMENTS HELD UP, ON THE GROUND OF THE IRREGULARITY OF ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS, AT THE FRONTIER IN THE AUTUMN OF 1981 ONLY AFTER AN ARRANGEMENT WITH THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT WHICH PROVIDED IN PARTICULAR FOR THE RELEASE WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE WINE HELD UP AND AFTER AN APPROACH BY THE TWO GOVERNMENTS CONCERNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE RELEASE TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY COMMUNITY AID FOR STORAGE CONTRACTS . THE CONSIGNMENTS CONCERNED WERE RELEASED ONLY ACCORDING TO PROCEDURES AND WITHIN PERIODS PRESCRIBED IN THE ARRANGEMENT .
11 FOLLOWING THE REASONED OPINION WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD SENT TO IT, THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT IN FUTURE IT WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH RANDOM ANALYSES ON ONE CONSIGNMENT OUT OF 10 . THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT THEN HAD KNOWLEDGE OF CASES OF POLLUTION OF WINE AND BREACHES
OF THE RULES WHICH IT HAD DISCOVERED BETWEEN MARCH AND JULY 1981 AND TO WHICH IT REFERS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE NEED FOR A REINFORCEMENT OF CONTROLS . THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT HAS ADDUCED NO EVIDENCE CAPABLE OF SHOWING THAT THE POSITION HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN AS REGARDS THE RISKS TO HEALTH WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM THE IMPORTATION OF ITALIAN WINES, AND WHICH WOULD HENCEFORTH JUSTIFY ANALYSES IN THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR CASES .
12 THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT SENT TO THE COMMISSION A COMMUNICATION DATED 2 FEBRUARY 1982 AND CONTAINING INTER ALIA THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE : ' ' THE WINE-GROWING TRADE OF THE SOUTH OF FRANCE HAS BECOME VERY ANXIOUS AS A RESULT OF THE LARGE INCREASE IN IMPORTS OF WINE FROM ITALY DURING JANUARY 1982 AT PRICES APPRECIABLY LOWER THAN THOSE OF THE MARKET . AS A RESULT THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE PROVISIONS AS FROM 30 JANUARY FOR MORE QUALITATIVE ANALYSES TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE COMPETENT ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS BEFORE RELEASE TO THE MARKET . CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BY CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE PRESS IMPORTS HAVE NOT BEEN STOPPED BUT SLOWED DOWN WITH A VIEW TO A RETURN TO A NORMAL RATE ' ' .
13 THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE PRACTICES IN QUESTION WERE ADOPTED BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES, THE EXISTENCE OF THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE IN OCTOBER 1981 BETWEEN THE FRENCH AND ITALIAN GOVERNMENTS PROVIDING FOR THE RELEASE, IN STAGES AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, OF CONSIGNMENTS HELD UP AT THE FRONTIER, AND FINALLY THE EXPLANATION REFERRED TO ABOVE GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION BY FRENCH GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ANALYSES CONSTITUTE, PRIMA FACIE, EVIDENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL NATURE IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION ' S ALLEGATION THAT THE PRACTICES WITH WHICH THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT IS CHARGED WERE PURSUED BY IT IN JANUARY 1982 FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTRICTING THE VOLUME OF IMPORTS .
14 IT FOLLOWS THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF FACT AND LAW MADE IN SUPPORT OF THE MAIN ACTION THE GRANT OF INTERIM MEASURES APPEARS PRIMA FACIE TO BE JUSTIFIED .
15 THE NEXT QUESTION WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 186 OF THE TREATY, IS WHETHER INTERIM MEASURES ARE NECESSARY, THAT IS TO SAY, WHETHER THERE IS URGENCY IN ORDERING SUCH MEASURES WITH A VIEW TO AVOIDING SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE RESULTING, IN THE ABSENCE OF INTERIM MEASURES, FROM THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PRACTICES AT ISSUE DURING THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS .
16 IN THIS RESPECT IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE EFFECT OF THE PRACTICES AT ISSUE IS NOT ONLY TO PROLONG THE DURATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES PRECEDING RELEASE TO THE MARKET BUT ALSO TO RESTRICT THE VOLUME OF WINE WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE TO RELEASE TO THE MARKET AND THUS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE FRENCH MARKET LARGE PART OF THE ITALIAN PRODUCTION WHICH IN THE ABSENCE OF THOSE PRACTICES COULD BE SOLD ON THAT MARKET .
17 IT WAS NOT DENIED DURING THE INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS THAT A CONSIDERABLE QUANTITY OF ITALIAN WINE WAS BEING HELD UP AT THE FRENCH FRONTIER BECAUSE OF THE PRACTICES AT ISSUE . A REMEDY FOR THAT SITUATION IS THEREFORE URGENTLY CALLED FOR IN ORDER TO AVOID SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE .
18 THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT OBJECTS THAT THE GRANT OF INTERIM MEASURES WOULD ALSO RISK CAUSING SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE . IN THE ABSENCE OF CHECKS ON QUALITY THERE WOULD BE A GRAVE RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH BECAUSE, ONCE THEY ARE RELEASED TO THE MARKET, IT IS OFTEN IMPOSSIBLE TO TRACE IMPORTED WINES WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY PROVISIONS AND WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH . THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT STRESSES IN THAT RESPECT THE SPECIAL RISKS CREATED BY THE CARRIAGE BY SEA OF WINE IN BULK .
19 IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURT MAY NOT ORDER INTERIM MEASURES WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY RULES OR A RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH . THAT, HOWEVER, IS NOT THE CASE IN REGARD TO INTERIM MEASURES WHICH ARE INTENDED NOT TO PREVENT THE NECESSARY CHECKS FOR THOSE PURPOSES BUT TO ENSURE THAT THE PROCEDURES FOR CARRYING OUT THOSE CHECKS DO NOT CREATE UNJUSTIFIED DAMAGE .
20 DURING THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS THE QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED OF ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH MAY RESULT FROM AN INCREASE IN THE IMPORTS OF WINE FROM ITALY OR FROM AN UNSATISFACTORY FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN WINE . SUCH DIFFICULTIES CANNOT, HOWEVER, JUSTIFY UNILATERAL MEASURES ADOPTED BY ONE MEMBER STATE . THEY MUST IF NECESSARY BE
RESOLVED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMUNITY PROCEDURES PROVIDED FOR THAT PURPOSE .
21 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE CONDITIONS TO WHICH THE GRANT OF INTERIM MEASURES IS SUBJECT ARE FULFILLED IN THIS CASE AND THAT PENDING THE DELIVERY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN ACTION IT IS NECESSARY, UNDER ARTICLE 186 OF THE EEC TREATY, TO SUSPEND THE PRACTICES AT ISSUE WHICH ARE BEING APPLIED BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES .
22 AS REGARDS THE TERMS OF THE MEASURES TO BE ORDERED IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RECORD THAT THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT ITSELF CONSIDERED IN OCTOBER 1981 THAT RANDOM CHECKS ON ROUGHLY ONE CONSIGNMENT IN 10 WOULD SUFFICE TO AVOID ANY RISKS AND THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD TO SHOW THAT THE BASIS OF THAT ASSESSMENT HAS CHANGED IN THE MEANTIME . IT THEREFORE APPEARS APPROPRIATE, APART FROM SPECIAL CASES WHERE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE MAY JUSTIFY A SUSPICION OF FRAUD, TO RESTRICT THE FREQUENCY OF ANALYSES BEFORE RELEASE TO THE MARKET OF THE CONSIGNMENTS CONCERNED . HAVING REGARD TO THE NECESSARILY PROVISIONAL NATURE OF THE MEASURES TO BE ORDERED AND IN ORDER NOT TO PRE-JUDGE FACTORS WHICH MAY, IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, EMERGE DURING THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS IT IS PROPER TO RESTRICT THOSE ANALYSES TO A MAXIMUM OF 15% OF THE CONSIGNMENTS PRESENTED AT THE FRONTIER .
23 EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH DOES NOT, MOREOVER, REQUIRE THAT THE CONSIGNMENTS OF WINE CHECKED BEFORE RELEASE TO THE MARKET SHOULD BE HELD UP AT THE FRONTIER . IN THAT RESPECT THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT ITSELF CONSIDERED THAT IT OUGHT NORMALLY BE POSSIBLE TO EFFECT THE NECESSARY ANALYSES WITHIN A PERIOD OF A FORTNIGHT BUT THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES MIGHT POSSIBLY CREATE DELAYS . IT THEREFORE APPEARS APPROPRIATE TO ORDER, BY WAY OF AN INTERIM MEASURE, THAT THE ANALYSES MADE BEFORE RELEASE OF THE CONSIGNMENTS IN QUESTION TO THE MARKET MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 21 DAYS FROM PRESENTATION OF THOSE CONSIGNMENTS AND THE DOCUMENTS AT THE FRONTIER UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIAL REASONS WHICH JUSTIFY SPECIFIC ANALYSES IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES .
24 AS REGARDS THE CHECKING OF THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS IT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED DURING THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS THAT IT IS FOR THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES TO VERIFY THAT ALL THE CONSIGNMENTS OF WINE PRESENTED AT THE FRONTIER ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS DULY COMPLETED AND ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT ITALIAN DEPARTMENTS . DIFFICULTIES AND OBSTACLES CREATED BY SUCH CHECKING OF DOCUMENTS MUST HOWEVER BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE END PURSUED . ONLY SUBSTANTIAL IRREGULARITIES MAY THEREFORE JUSTIFY DELAY IN THE RELEASE TO THE MARKET OF THE CONSIGNMENTS IN QUESTION . WHEN SUCH IRREGULARITIES ARE FOUND BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES AND WHEN, ACCORDING TO THOSE AUTHORITIES, THEY JUSTIFY REFUSAL OF RELEASE TO THE MARKET, THEY MUST WITHOUT DELAY INFORM THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES OF THE IRREGULARITIES AND SUPPLY THEM WITH THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO ENABLE THEM TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE VERIFICATIONS OR PARTICULARS . WHERE THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF ANY CONSIGNMENT HAS BEEN REGULARIZED BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES THAT CONSIGNMENT MUST IMMEDIATELY BE RELEASED TO THE MARKET .
25 HAVING REGARD TO THE OBLIGATION WHICH ARTICLE 155 OF THE EEC TREATY IMPOSES ON THE COMMISSION TO ENSURE THAT THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS, IN THE PRESENT CASE THIS ORDER, ARE APPLIED, IT IS PROPER TO ORDER THAT WHEN THE RELEASE TO THE MARKET OF QUANTITIES OF WINE FROM ITALY IN EXCESS OF 50 000 HECTOLITRES IS REFUSED FOR MORE THAN 21 DAYS ON GROUNDS EITHER OF ANALYSES OR IRREGULARITIES IN ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES MUST INFORM THE COMMISSION OF THE REASONS FOR SUCH REFUSAL .
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
Operative part
THE COURT,
BY WAY OF AN INTERLOCUTORY DECISION,
HEREBY ORDERS :
1 . PENDING THE JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN ACTION THE FRENCH REPUBLIC IS REQUIRED TO OBSERVE THE LIMITATIONS HEREINAFTER SPECIFIED REGARDING THE PRACTICES RELATING TO THE RELEASE TO THE MARKET IN FRANCE OF WINES IMPORTED FROM ITALY ;
( A ) APART FROM SPECIAL CASES IN WHICH SPECIFIC EVIDENCE MAY JUSTIFY A SUSPICION OF FRAUD THE FREQUENCY OF ANALYSES BEFORE THE RELEASE TO THE MARKET OF THE CONSIGNMENTS IN QUESTION MUST NOT EXCEED 15 % OF THE CONSIGNMENTS PRESENTED AT THE FRONTIER ;
( B)THE DURATION OF ANALYSES MADE BEFORE THE RELEASE TO THE MARKET OF THE CONSIGNMENTS IN QUESTION MUST NOT EXCEED 21 DAYS FROM PRESENTATION OF THE CONSIGNMENTS AND THE DOCUMENTS AT THE FRONTIER UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIAL GROUNDS WHICH JUSTIFY SPECIFIC ANALYSES IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES ;
( C)THE RELEASE TO THE MARKET OF CONSIGNMENTS OF WINE MAY NOT BE REFUSED ON GROUNDS OF IRREGULARITY OF THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS UNLESS THE IRREGULARITIES ARE SUBSTANTIAL .
( D)WHEN SUBSTANTIAL IRREGULARITIES ARE FOUND BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES THEY MUST WITHOUT DELAY INFORM THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES OF SUCH IRREGULARITIES AND SUPPLY THEM WITH THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS . WHERE THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF ANY CONSIGNMENT HAS BEEN REGULARIZED BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES THAT CONSIGNMENT MUST IMMEDIATELY BE RELEASED TO THE MARKET .
2.WHEN THE RELEASE TO THE MARKET OF QUANTITIES OF WINE FROM ITALY IN EXCESS OF 50 000 HECTOLITRES IS REFUSED FOR MORE THAN 21 DAYS ON GROUNDS EITHER OF ANALYSES OR IRREGULARITIES IN ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES MUST INFORM THE COMMISSION OF THE REASONS FOR SUCH REFUSAL .
3.THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .