(3)

However, in addition to the material for interpretation provided by the general scheme of Article 26 in its entirety, material may also be found in the reasons which led to the adoption of the Community rules on coupage, considered as a whole. It seems to me that in reaching an interpretation regard must be had to the fifteenth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 816/70 (twenty-eighth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 337/79), which in regard to coupage states as follows: “whereas, in view of its possible consequences, its control is necessary in order to prevent abuse”. (a) As the wording of that recital indicates, the Community rules on coupage are strict. It is to be observed however, at least with regard to wines produced in the Community, which are the only ones for which a complete body of rules exist, that this rigour only applies to wines intended for direct consumption. As we have seen, paragraphs (1) to (3) of Article 26, which concern table wines and wines suitable for yielding table wine, lay down precise rules concerning the quality (paragraph (1)) and colour (paragraph (3)) of the wines which may be the subject of coupage and the zones in which the process must take place (paragraph (2)). Wines resulting from the coupage of quality wines produced in specified regions (quality wines psr) with a wine other than a quality wine psr or with a quality wine psr which is not entitled to bear the name of the same specific region may in principle not be supplied for direct human consumption by virtue of Article 4 (a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1972/78 of 16 August 1978 laying down detailed rules on oenological practices. On the other hand, wines derived from coupage and intended for industrial use are unrestricted. They are not covered by paragraphs (1) to (3) of Article 26. Moreover, Article 27 (3) of Regulation No 816/70 expressly provides that wine “derived from the vine varieties” approved for cultivation in the Community “but not corresponding to the definitions” of table wine and wine suitable for yielding table wine “may be used only for consumption in the family of the individual winegrowers, for the production of wine vinegar or for distillation”. In order to understand the reasons for this different treatment, it is in my view necessary to have regard to the objectives of the Community policy on wine. In the case of all wines, including those which owing to their inferior quality are intended for industrial uses, such as vinegar-making, the rules must ensure in particular the safeguarding of public health, the protection of consumers and fair trading. However, in the case of wines consumed directly, those requirements are combined with the concern to achieve production of the highest possible quality. It is the latter consideration which explains the particular strictness of the rules governing the coupage of those wines. With regard to wines having undergone coupage coming from nonmember countries, on the other hand, Article 26 (4), which forms the major part of the rules on the matter, does not, as we have seen, expressly make any distinction on the basis of their intended use. However, since the rules on the coupage of Community wines apply only to wines intended for direct consumption, special reasons would be required if the position were to be different with regard to wines from nonmember countries. In my view, such special reasons exist only in the case of wines intended for direct human consumption. Wines produced in the Community are subject to uniform rules which, as we have seen, are reflected in a common definition of “table wine”, so that there is no objection to allowing the mixing of wines corresponding to that definition with each other or with wines suitable for yielding table wine which also corresponds to a common definition. Wines from nonmember countries, on the other hand, do not individually correspond to common criteria of quality, even where they have undergone quality control in the State in which they have been produced, nor are they subject to comparable controls. Consequently, the safeguards intended to ensure the quality of each wine are likely to become ineffective if the wines are mixed. In the case of wines intended for vinegar-making, on the other hand, the need for quality control disappears. Consequently, provided of course that in all other respects they comply with all the requirements for importation into the Community, there is no further purpose to be served by prohibiting in principle the coupage of such wines. As the maxim has it, “cessante ratione legis cessat lex ipsa”. The justification for the different treatment advanced by the French Government, namely the need to maximize the outlets for Community wines in a market characterized by surpluses, does not seem to me to be relevant. If it is true that Community preference is a fundamental principle of the common agricultural policy, then observance of that principle may, I think, be ensured only by instruments provided for that purpose and not by exaggerating the scope of a provision, for the use of which for protectionist purposes I can see no legal justification. In sum, I consider that the arguments set out above as to the basis of the Community rules on coupage, in conjunction with the factors which the general scheme of Article 26 seemed to me to disclose, are conclusive as to the interpretation of the provision in question. I conclude therefore that in reply to the question raised by the Eleventh Criminal Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, the Court should rule that the provisions of Article 26 (4) of Regulation No 816/70 of the Council of 28 April 1970 laying down additional provisions for the common organization of the market in wine do not apply to wines intended for vinegar-making.