I —

The central issue in the present case is the question whether blends of table wines of Types A II and A I also come under wines of Type A II within the meaning of Article 2 (b) of Regulation 945/70 of the Council and, if so, how high the proportion of wine of Type A I may be for the blend still to come under the said classification. The reason is that only table wines of Type A II from the Federal Republic of Germany could at the time of the export of the wines in question by the plaintiff still enjoy the monetary compensatory amounts under Article 1 of Regulation 2448/75 of the Commission. The question, which has been raised by the Commission but in the absence of the necessary particulars has not been answered, whether the blends exported by the plaintiff are ‘table wines’ at all within the meaning of Article 26 of Regulation 816/70 of the Council of 28 April 1970 laying down additional provisions for the common organization of the market in wine (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 234) can, in my view, be disregarded here. First, neither party disputes it, although in public law this is not decisive, and secondly, the Finanzgericht Hamburg, as the forum concerned with the facts, has found as a fact that it is ‘table wine’. In any event, this is a question of fact which the national courts have to decide. We are not asked to interpret that concept. We are concerned with the interpretation of the concept ‘wine of Type A II’ as determined by Article 2 (b) of Regulation 945/70. The different classification of various types of table wine in Regulation 945/70 was undertaken, as appears from the preamble, mainly for the purpose of fixing the guide prices for representative types of table under Article 2 of Regulation 816/70. As the Commission adds, it has in addition a bearing on the other relevant prices in the context of the common intervention system. An interpretation of the provisions of Regulation 945/70 must therefore be based on its objective in relation to prices. As regards that objective it is solely a question of the relevant characteristics determining prices of the particular types of wine and vine variety or, as the Commission briefly explains, what wines of which vine varieties can be marketed and sold as the same type of wine. This does not require precise tariff classification according to organoleptic characteristics and peculiarities and accordingly this is not undertaken by Regulation 945/70. Thus Article 2 (b) of that regulation already mentions two vine varieties which are closely related as regards price, Müller-Thurgau and Sylvaner, as belonging to Type A II; and even those two varieties, as Article 3 of the regulation shows, are to be understood only as being distinctive varieties. Until now it has been for the individual Member States to determine more precisely which other vine varieties should be classified with Müller-Thurgau and Sylvaner under Type A II due to their low acidity. Since Regulation 945/70, as explained, is closely connected with Regulation 816/70, then in my opinion reference may also be made, as the Commission rightly does, to the principles according to which it was drafted for the definition of wine and its varieties. Regulation 816/70 always expressly provides when a wine must be produced exclusively from certain vine varieties to satisfy a particular definition. Therefore in my view since Regulation 945/70 does not contain such a restriction it is possible without hesitation to assume that blends can also come within the various types of. wine, providing only that the character of the decisive vine variety relevant to classification of a wine under a particular type is preserved. The only question which remains to be decided in this connexion is the extent to which other wines may be added without the classification of the blend in Type A II being placed in doubt. Since 1 September 1976 Regulation 2133/74 of the Council of 8 August 1974 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts (Official Journal L 227 of 17 August 1974, p. 1) has governed the lawfulness and amount of additives and allows 15 % of other wines to be added. Before that regulation entered into force it was necessary in the absence of Community provisions to apply the relevant provisions of the particular Member States, and thus in the present case Article 8 of the German wine regulation of 15 July 1971 (Bürgerliches Gesetzblatt I, p. 926) which provides that the additive may not exceed 25 % of the blend. When the plaintiff, who itself makes reference to that provision, asserts that in the case of a wine having a neutral flavour the additive may be of a higher percentage, it disregards the fact that the question of neutrality of taste is difficult to ascertain and that therefore it is necessary to provide for a definite percentage of additive, as the German wine regulation did previously and as now is done by Regulation 2133/74. Only in this way is it possible to obtain clear and unambiguous results in the classification of blends under the various types of wines laid down by Regulation 945/70. The foregoing determines the basis on which Questions 1 and 2 of the national court must be answered. When the plaintiff asserts that it is possible to justify a higher proportion of additives on the basis of customs regulations, it disregards the fact the Regulation 2448/75 refers expressly to Regulation 945/70, which in the light of its objectives can be interpreted and supplemented only according to principles relating to the rules on wine and prices.