AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , DRAWING THE RELEVANT CONCLUSIONS FROM THAT JUDGMENT , STATES THAT THE DESIGNATION ' ' WEINBRAND ' ' , TOGETHER WITH THE ADDITION OF THE NAME OF THE MEMBER STATE OF ORIGIN OR AN ADJECTIVE DERIVED FROM THAT NAME , MAY BE USED IN MARKETING SPIRITS MADE FROM WINE COMING FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES WHICH SATISFY THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 44 OF THE WEINGESETZ IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE DESIGNATIONS RESERVED FOR HIGH QUALITY SPIRITS .
17IT IS AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE VARIOUS FACTORS TO WHICH ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN ABOVE THAT THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE COURT ARE TO BE ANSWERED .
THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE COURT
18THE FIRST QUESTION ASKS WHETHER ARTICLES 30 AND 31 OF THE EEC TREATY AS WELL AS THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER COMMUNITY LAW ARE TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE RULES LAID DOWN IN SUBPARAGRAPHS 1 AND 4 OF ARTICLE 40 ( 1 ) OF THE WEINGESETZ OF 14 JULY 1971 ( BUNDESGESETZBLATT : PART I , PAGE 893 ET SEQ . AT 908 ) ACCORDING TO WHICH HOME-PRODUCED SPIRITS FROM WINE MAY BE DESIGNATED AS ' ' QUALITATSBRANNTWEIN AUS WEIN ' ' ( HIGH QUALITY SPIRITS MADE FROM WINE ) OR AS ' ' WEINBRAND ' ' ( BRANDY ), ONLY IF :
- AT LEAST 85% OF THE ALCOHOLIC CONTENT IS DERIVED FROM WINE DISTILLATE HOME-PRODUCED ( IM INLAND ) BY DISTILLATION ;
- THE WHOLE OF THE WINE DISTILLATE USED HAS BEEN KEPT FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS IN OAKEN CASKS AT THE FACTORY IN GERMANY WHERE THE HOME- PRODUCED WINE DISTILLATE WAS EXTRACTED BY DISTILLATION ,
ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PROHIBITION OF MEASURES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND ALSO WITH THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION .
19ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY TO DECIDE UPON THE COMPATIBILITY OF A NATIONAL PROVISION WITH COMMUNITY LAW , IT MAY NEVERTHELESS EXTRACT FROM THE WORDING OF THE QUESTION FORMULATED BY THE NATIONAL COURT , HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS STATED BY THE LATTER , THOSE ELEMENTS WHICH COME WITHIN THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW .
20THE FIRST QUESTION AMOUNTS IN SUBSTANCE TO ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF MEASURES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION ( ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY ) AND THE GENERAL PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION ARE AIMED AT MEASURES ADOPTED BY A MEMBER STATE WHICH MAKE THE USE OF A DESIGNATION OF QUALITY FOR A HOME-PRODUCED FINISHED PRODUCT AND , IN PARTICULAR , FOR AN ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT MANUFACTURED FROM RAW MATERIALS WHICH COME EITHER FROM THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED OR FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES , SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE WHOLE OR PART OF THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS PRIOR TO THE FINAL STAGE OF THE LATTER TAKES PLACE IN THE MEMBER STATE WHERE THE FINAL STAGE OF PRODUCTION IS CARRIED OUT AND WHERE , THEREFORE , THE PRODUCT IS REGARDED AS