31.12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/59 
Having regard to the opinion issued by the Section 
for External Relations at its meeting on 11 October 
1983, For this reason the Committee accepts that for 1984 
the Commission is proposing only marginal changes 
compatible with the present economic situation. 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rappor­
teur, Mr Dietmar Cremer, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 211th plenary 
session held on 26 and 27 October 1983 (meeting of 
27 October 1983), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously with two abstentions: 
1. Subject to the comments set out in the report of 
the Section for External Relations and in its pre­
vious opinions (l), the Committee approves the 
Commission's proposal for the Community's GSP 
scheme for 1984. 
2. In the Committee's view the Commission was 
right to be guided by the following two considera­
tions when preparing its 1984 GSP, namely: 
— the economic and above all the employment 
situation in the Community, 
— the commercial and development policy 
requirements of the LDCs, which are still facing 
serious financial difficulties. 
(') OJ No C 205, 11.8. 1980; OJ No C 331, 17. 12. 1980; 
OJNoC343,31. 12. 1981; OJ No C 326, 13. 12. 1982. 3. The Committee also approves the Commission's 
concern to improve the situation of, above all, the 
least-developed countries. 
The Committee regrets that the Commission does 
not publish a breakdown of the use of the GSP by 
beneficiary countries; this would have given a better 
indication of its impact on the development of the 
countries concerned. 
Pending the publication of these figures we must 
start right now to think about the changes which 
must be made in the GSP for the next five-year 
period if it is to play its full part in promoting the 
development of the poorest countries and communi­
ties. 
4. The Committee hopes that when the Council 
comes to take its decision on the scheme for the 
next five-year period it will decide to include 
clauses on minimum labour standards and human 
rights in the partner countries. 
5. Finally, the Committee reiterates its previous 
comments on the administration of the GSP and the 
timetable for consulting the ESC. 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposals for Council Regulations 
I. amending Regulation (EEC) No 358/79 on sparkling wines produced in the 
Community and defined in item 13 of Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 
II. laying down general rules for the description and presentation of sparkling wines and 
aerated sparkling wines 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 120 of 5 May 1983, page 3. 
No C 358/60 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 83 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 7 April 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposals to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
21 lth plenary session held in Brussels on 26 and 27 October 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 43 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 7 April 1983 for 
an opinion on the proposal for a Council Regula­
tion amending Regulation (EEC) No 358/79 on 
sparkling wines produced in the Community and 
defined in item 13 of Annex II to Regulation (EEC) 
No 337/79, and the proposal for a Council Regula­
tion laying down general rules for the description 
and presentation of sparkling wines and aerated 
sparkling wines, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 26 April 1983, instructing the Section for Agricul­
ture to prepare the Committee's work on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Sec­
tion for Agriculture at its 246th meeting, held on 
6 October 1983, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rappor­
teur, Mr de Grave 
Having regard to the discussions on 27 October 
1983, during the 211th plenary session, held on 26 
and 27 October 1983, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
The Committee approves the proposed Regulations, 
subject to the general and specific comments set out 
below. 
I. PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION 
AMENDING REGULATION (EEC) No 358/79 ON SPARKLING WINES PRODUCED IN THE 
COMMUNITY AND DEFINED IN ITEM 13 OF 
ANNEX II TO REGULATION (EEC) No 337/79 
The Committee notes that the Commission wishes 
to submit as a matter of urgency a draft Council 
Regulation on the basis of a declaration the Council 
made in 1974 committing itself to adopt provisions 
concerning the description and presentation of 
sparkling wines. 
In view of the major divergencies in the Member 
States' provisions, which give rise to distortions of 
competition, there is an urgent need for a Regula­
tion bringing together all the rules on the descrip­
tion and presentation of these wines. 
As regards the procedure, it is necessary to delete 
Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 358/79, which 
deals with only one aspect of the problem, and to 
incorporate a similar provision in a general and 
exhaustive Regulation covering also imported 
sparkling wines. 
The Committee approves the adoption of a general 
Regulation on the description and presentation of 
sparkling wines and hence the deletion of Article 8 
of Regulation (EEC) No 358/79 (which is a precon­
dition for the adoption of a general instrument). 
II. PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION 
LAYING DOWN GENERAL RULES FOR THE 
DESCRIPTION AND PRESENTATION OF 
SPARKLING WINES AND AERATED SPARK­
LING WINES 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee has noted that there can be 
abnormal competition in the Community between 
very different products marketed under the name of 
sparkling wine or aerated sparkling wine, on 
31. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/61 
account of the major differences between Member 
States' laws. 
The Committee observes first of all that the descrip­
tion 'aerated sparkling' is incorrect and liable to 
create confusion. It considers that the term 'aerated 
wine' would be closer to reality. 
It is, however, necessary to ensure that aerated 
wines remain under the same tariff heading as 
sparkling wines, so that they do not receive more 
favourable fiscal treatment than the latter. 
The Committee also considers that the problem of 
semi-sparkling wines (vins petillants) should be dealt 
with so as to preclude any possibility of confusion 
with sparkling wines. 
1.2. The Committee is in favour of a presentation 
that is really in keeping with the nature and quality 
of the product, which depends in large measure on 
the permitted methods of production. 
1.3. As regards labelling, the Committee approves 
the Commission proposal, drawing attention to the 
following comments made by it in a previous opi­
nion. 
'The Committee endorses compulsory indi­
cation of ingredients provided that as regards their 
substance and date of entry into force the rules 
are such that there is no discrimination between 
the various products.' 
'The Committee not only agrees with the Com­
mission that in order to avoid discrimination it 
would be desirable if the provisions for all 
alcoholic beverages were brought into force at 
the same time and in a coordinated manner but 
finds that this is not only desirable but neces­
sary. The Committee also feels that it should be 
compulsory to indicate alcoholic strength and 
ingredients on all alcoholic beverages (')•' 
This position was confirmed in another ESC opi­
nion (2). 
1.4. The Committee is anxious that the provisions 
on designation of origin and those on trade marks 
should be mutually compatible; as regards the latter, 
supervision of trade marks would be desirable in 
that there would appear to be trade marks liable to 
(') OJ No C 124,9. 5. 1983, p. 23. 
(2) OJ No C 124, 9. 5. 1983, p. 16. mislead the consumer and difficult to pinpoint on 
the European market. 
For example, products are sold under labels such as 
'X of Epernay' although there is no natural or legal 
person of that name. 
1.5. The Committee would ask the Commission to 
add the term 'cremant' (lightly sparkling) to the 
defined and protected terms. This term, which is 
used in several Member States, refers to a particular 
type of product and not to a superior quality. It is 
not therefore covered by Article 5 (7). 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 3 (2) (checks) 
The words 'the authority responsible' should be 
replaced by 'an authority responsible'. 
2.2. Article 4 (3) (alcoholic strength) 
The words 'rounded to the nearest unit' should be 
replaced by 'rounded to the nearest % vol. or half % 
vol.' 
2.3. Article 4 (4) (indication of residual sugar) 
The Committee considers that the exception prov­
ided for in the last subparagraph in respect of 
sparkling wines of the aromatic type should ulti­
mately be abolished (by an appropriate procedure, if 
necessary). It therefore proposes that the date on 
which this exception is to end be fixed so that the 
consumer will know how much sugar a sparkling 
wine contains. 
2.4. Article 4 (5j (ingredients) 
The following should be added: 
— must, 
— carbon dioxide (for the aerated wines). 
The Committee would also refer to its comments on 
Article 12 (2) in point 2.10. 
No C 358/62 Official Journal of the European Communities 31.12.83 
2.5. Article 4 (6) (identification of the producer) 
It should be borne in mind that, according to the 
second recital, the purpose of description and pre­
sentation should always be to provide both poten­
tial buyers and the public bodies responsible for 
organizing and supervising the marketing of the 
products concerned with sufficiently clear and accu­
rate information to enable them to form an opinion 
of the products. 
The third subparagraph, which allows the producer 
to be indicated in code form, should be amended. 
As it is basically the soil and the producer's know-
how which give the product its characteristics, there 
is no need to keep the producer's name hidden from 
the consumer. However, an exception to this princi­
ple may be made if the name of the grower is clearly 
indicated on the label. 
2.6. Article 5 (ordinary sparkling wines with geo­
graphical indication of origin) 
The Committee considers that, in the case of spark­
ling wines which are not 'quality sparkling wines' but 
which are sold with a geographical indication of 
their origin and are thus easily identifiable, authori­
zation should be given to mention: 
— the name of a geographical unit other than a 
specified region and smaller than a Member 
State or a non-member country (Article 5(1)), 
— the name of a vine variety (Article 5 (2)), 
— the method of fermentation (Article 5 (4) and 
(5)), 
— the vintage year (Article 5 (6)). 
Such details may be given in the case of still wines, 
and there is no justification for taking a completely 
different approach here and forbidding a producer 
to mention the fundamental characteristics of the 
product of his land. 
Paradoxically, the labels of certain wines from a 
typical area whose quality is due to the choice of a 
vine variety and a production process that guarantee 
freshness could not mention the name of the vine 
variety, the production process or the area. 
The prohibition of certain expressions (for example, 
sparkling wine of the muscat type) could even result 
in the consumer being misled. Care should, however, be taken to ensure that these 
items of information cannot be confused with the 
expressions attesting to nine months ageing, notably 
by making it compulsory to indicate the method of 
preparation. 
2.7. Article 5 (quality sparkling wines without indi­
cation of origin) 
If the possibility of mentioning the vine variety, vin­
tage year, etc. for these products is retained, arrange­
ments will have to be made for more thorough 
checks. 
2.8. Article 5 (2) (name of vine variety) 
The Committee would draw the Commission's 
attention to the fact that there are products which 
are sold under the name not of one particular 
variety of vine but of a 'family' of vine varieties. 
There are several muscat varieties and several Pin-
ots, and the wines are sometimes blended and sold 
as 'Muscat', 'Pinot de Pinots', etc. 
2.9. Article 5 (7) (reference to superior quality or to 
a method of production) 
The Committee proposes that the possibility of 
making such a reference provided for in Article 5 (7) 
be defined more precisely. 
Terms such as 'ler cru' or 'grand cru' cannot be 
applied to wines of unknown origin without creat­
ing confusion and should be reserved for quality 
sparkling wines with indication of origin (Member 
State or third country). 
There should be not only an exhaustive list of the 
references in question (as provided for in the last 
subparagraph) but also different terminology for 
products with a registered designation of origin and 
for products without any indication of origin. 
The term 'reserve', could be used for products which 
do not qualify for the adjective 'quality' (since their 
quality is based on factors other than ageing), with­
out discrimination between Member State prod­
ucers. 
At present, nine months' ageing is in principle 
required in order to qualify for the designation 
'quality sparkling wine', except in the case of spark­
ling wines of the aromatic type. 
31.12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 358/63 
The Commission has implicitely recognized that the 
present provisions are inadequate in certain cases 
where ageing is detrimental to quality by proposing 
on 8 September 1983 a second exception for certain 
quality sparkling wines produced in specified 
regions of Italy, whose production process may be 
shorter than nine months but not less than six 
months. 
The Committee considers that an arrangement 
which does not discriminate between the Member 
States (for example, use of the term 'reserve') should 
be adopted for products which do not qualify for 
the designation 'quality sparkling wine' because 
their intrinsic quality (which deteriorates with exces­
sive ageing, as is the case with the muscats and the 
sparkling wines covered by the proposal of 8 Sep­
tember 1983) is due to other factors to be specified 
(vine variety, method of winemaking ...). 
Finally, since it is the contact of the wine with the 
lees that contributes to the improvement in quality, the Committee would ask the Commission to take 
account of the type of ageing where necessary. 
Where the product is separated from the lees and 
kept in sealed bottles in which it will reach the con­
sumer, this additional period during which the prod­
uct is kept in the producer's establishment (although 
already bottled and ready for consumption) has a 
certain importance from the quality angle only 
during the first 15-30 days. Thereafter, if the bottle is 
kept properly, the quality, which tends to decline 
with time, certainly does not improve, and if the 
bottle is not kept properly the quality deteriorates. 
2.10. Article 12 (2) (protection of the term 'wine') 
The Committee accepts the derogation for British 
wine, provided specific steps are taken to ensure 
that the presentation and labelling indicate the raw 
materials used sufficiently clearly to prevent any 
confusion in the mind of the consumer. 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Framjois CEYRAC