CELEX: 61978CJ0233
Language: en
Date: 1979-06-28 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 June 1979. # Benedikt Lentes and others v Federal Republic of Germany. # References for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main - Germany. # Place of storage. # Joined cases 233, 234 and 235/78.

Avis juridique important

|

61978J0233

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 June 1979.  -  Benedikt Lentes and others v Federal Republic of Germany.  -  References for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main - Germany.  -  Place of storage.  -  Joined cases 233, 234 and 235/78.  

European Court reports 1979 Page 02305 Greek special edition Page 00137

SummaryPartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

1 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET - WINE - PRIVATE STORAGE AID FOR TABLE WINE - CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT THEREOF - MINIMUM QUANTITY REQUIRED - STORAGE IN A SINGLE PLACE OF STORAGE - NO  ( REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 816/70 OF THE COUNCIL ; COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2015/76 , ART . 5 )   2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET - WINE - MEMBER STATES - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS - PRIVATE STORAGE AID FOR TABLE WINE - CONTROL PROCEDURE - DISCRETION - DETERMINATION OF THE MAXIMUM DISPERSION OF THE PLACES OF STORAGE - CRITERIA   ( COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2015/76 , ART . 7 )   3 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET - WINE - MEMBER STATES - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS - PRIVATE STORAGE AID FOR TABLE WINE - CONTROL PROCEDURE - DISCRETION - DETERMINATION OF THE MAXIMUM DISPERSION OF THE PLACES OF STORAGE - CRITERIA   ( COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2015/76 , ART . 4 ( 2 ) ( C ) AND ART . 14 )    

Summary

1 . IT FOLLOWS BOTH FROM THE RECITALS OF THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATION NO 816/70 OF THE COUNCIL LAYING DOWN ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN WINE AND COMMISSION REGULATION NO 2015/76 ON STORAGE CONTRACTS FOR TABLE WINE , GRAPE MUST AND CONCENTRATED GRAPE MUST AND FROM THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE LATTER REGULATION THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF PRIVATE STORAGE AID FOR TABLE WINE IS TO HAVE AN EFFECT ON MARKET PRICES BY MEANS OF A REDUCTION IN SUPPLY AND THAT STORAGE CONTRACTS MUST THEREFORE RELATE TO SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES , IN OTHER WORDS QUANTITIES SUFFICIENT TO HAVE AN EFFECT ON MARKET PRICES ; FOR THIS REASON THE CONTRACTS MUST RELATE TO A MINIMUM QUANTITY OF 100 HECTOLITRES . THE ATTAINMENT OF THAT OBJECTIVE IS NOT HOWEVER LINKED TO THE STORAGE IN A SINGLE PLACE OF THE QUANTITIES TEMPORARILY REMOVED FROM THE MARKET . ON THE CONTRARY , THE DUTY TO STORE THE WINE IN A SINGLE STORAGE PLACE MIGHT FORM AN OBSTACLE TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED OBJECTIVE , IN PARTICULAR WHERE THE WINES ARE THOSE OF VARIOUS PRODUCERS WHO HAVE FORMED A GROUP .   2 . THE INTERVENTION AGENCIES ARE NOT OBLIGED TO CONCLUDE STORAGE CONTRACTS NO MATTER HOW DISPERSED THE PLACES IN WHICH THE WINES ARE STORED . BY GIVING THE MEMBER STATES THE TASK OF AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADOPTING ' ' ALL MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT THE NECESSARY CHECKS ARE MADE ' ' , ARTICLE 7 OF REGULATION NO 2015/76 GRANTS THOSE MEMBER STATES A MARGIN OF DISCRETION IN DETERMINING , HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF THE WINE-GROWING ZONES IN QUESTION , TO WHAT EXTENT A MULTIPLICATION OF THE PLACES OF STORAGE WOULD BE LIKELY TO JEOPARDIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CHECK OR TO INCREASE ITS COSTS OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT AND THUS JUSTIFY A REFUSAL TO CONCLUDE A STORAGE CONTRACT .   3 . THE EXPRESSION ' ' PLACE OF STORAGE ' '  USED IN ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( C ) AND ARTICLE 14 OF REGULATION NO 2015/76 CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS OBLIGING THE NATIONAL INTERVENTION AGENCIES TO REFUSE TO CONCLUDE A STORAGE CONTRACT WITH A PRODUCER OR GROUPS OF PRODUCERS OF TABLE WINE OF THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE QUANTITY FORMING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CONTRACT SOUGHT IS NOT STORED IN A SINGLE PLACE , THAT IS TO SAY ON ONE AND THE SAME PLOT OF LAND . HOWEVER IT IS FOR THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO DETERMINE , HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS IN THE WINE-GROWING ZONES IN QUESTION , TO WHAT EXTENT A MULTIPLICATION OF THE PLACES OF STORAGE , WHICH IS LIKELY TO JEOPARDIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CHECK ON STORAGE OPERATIONS OR TO MAKE THEM ABNORMALLY EXPENSIVE , ALLOWS THE CONCLUSIONS OF STORAGE CONTRACTS TO BE REFUSED .    

Parties

IN JOINED CASES 233 , 234 AND 235/78 REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTIONS PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT ,   IN CASE 233/78  BETWEEN  BENEDIKT LENTES AND OSWALD WERNER  AND  FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , REPRESENTED BY THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT  IN CASE 234/78  BETWEEN  LUDWINE GIBBERT , FR.-J . REIZ DANIELS , JOACHIM GABEL AND REINHOLD LEHNEN  AND  FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , REPRESENTED BY THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT  AND IN CASE 235/78  BETWEEN  NORBERT LAY , EDMUND SIMON , KARL DAHM JR . AND THEO BUSS  AND  FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , REPRESENTED BY THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT   

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2015/76 OF THE COMMISSION OF 13 AUGUST 1976 ON STORAGE CONTRACTS FOR TABLE WINE , GRAPE MUST AND CONCENTRATED GRAPE MUST ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 221 OF 14 AUGUST 1976 , P . 20 ),  

Grounds

1 BY THREE ORDERS OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1978 , RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 26 OCTOBER 1978 , THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY ON EACH OCCASION A QUESTION WORDED IN IDENTICAL TERMS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2015/76 OF 13 AUGUST 1976 ON STORAGE CONTRACTS FOR TABLE WINE , GRAPE MUST AND CONCENTRATED GRAPE MUST ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 221 , P . 20 ).    2 IN VIEW OF THE IDENTICAL WORDING OF THOSE QUESTIONS , THE COURT DECIDED BY ORDER OF 13 DECEMBER 1978 TO JOIN THE CASES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE WRITTEN AND ORAL PROCEDURE ; IT IS NECESSARY TO DO THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE JUDGMENT .    3 THE QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT , THE INTERVENTION AGENCY IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , AND VARIOUS GERMAN WINE PRODUCERS , TWO IN CASE 233/78 , FOUR IN CASE 234/78 AND FOUR IN CASE 235/78 , WHO HAD FORMED GROUPS SO AS TO LODGE APPLICATIONS FOR THE CONCLUSION OF STORAGE CONTRACTS FOR TABLE WINES PROVIDED FOR BY REGULATION NO 2015/76 . THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT REJECTED THOSE APPLICATIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE MINIMUM QUANTITY OF 100 HECTOLITRES TO WHICH EACH CONTRACT MUST RELATE ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 5 OF THAT REGULATION WAS NOT REACHED BECAUSE THE REQUIRED QUANTITY WAS STOCKED BY THE VARIOUS PRODUCERS IN DIFFERENT CELLARS , WHEREAS IN THE OPINION OF THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT THE REGULATION IN QUESTION REQUIRES THAT THE MINIMUM QUANTITY OF 100 HL MUST BE STORED IN A SINGLE PLACE OF STORAGE .    4 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE NATIONAL COURT HAS ASKED THE COURT OF JUSTICE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION : ' ' MUST COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2015/76 OF  13 AUGUST 1976 ON STORAGE CONTRACTS FOR TABLE WINE , GRAPE MUST AND CONCENTRATED GRAPE MUST ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 221 OF 14 AUGUST 1976 ) BE UNDERSTOOD , IN PARTICULAR ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXPRESSION ' ' PLACE OF STORAGE ' '  USED IN ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( C ) AND ARTICLE 14 ( A ) OF THAT REGULATION AND BECAUSE OF THE RULE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5 AS TO THE MINIMUM QUANTITY OF 100 HL IN THE CASE OF WINE AND MUST , AS MEANING THAT THE CONTRACTS WHICH MUST BE CONCLUDED RELATING TO A MINIMUM QUANTITY OF 100 HL IN THE CASE OF WINE AND MUST ( ARTICLE 5 OF THE REGULATION ) MAY , WHERE A CONTRACT IS CONCLUDED WITH PRODUCERS IN GROUPS ( FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF THE REGULATION ), BE CONCLUDED ONLY IF THE WHOLE MINIMUM QUANTITY OF 100 HL IS STORED IN ONE CELLAR OR IN THE CELLARS OF ONE PLOT OF LAND?  ' '   5 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS ON THE FILE THAT THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION RELATE ONLY TO TABLE WINE , SO THAT THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION WHICH HAS BEEN ASKED CAN BE RESTRICTED TO THAT PRODUCT WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO GIVE A RULING ON THE DISCREPANCY AS REGARDS GRAPE MUST BETWEEN THE GERMAN VERSION OF ARTICLE 5 AND THE OTHER VERSIONS .    6 ARTICLES 5 AND 6 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 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 ), WHICH WERE AMENDED BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1160/76 OF 17 MAY 1976 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 135 , P . 1 ), PROVIDE FOR PRIVATE STORAGE AID AND INSTRUCT THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT IN PARTICULAR DETAILED RULES FOR THE CONCLUSION OF STORAGE CONTRACTS TO BE ENTERED INTO BY PRODUCERS AND THE NATIONAL INTERVENTION AGENCIES . IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE PROVISIONS , REGULATION NO 2015/76 LAID DOWN , AS STATED IN THE SECOND RECITAL OF THE PREAMBLE THERETO , ' ' RULES . . . COVERING THE CONCLUSION , THE CONTENT , THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY AND THE EFFECTS OF SUCH CONTRACTS ' ' .    7 FOR THIS PURPOSE , REGULATION NO 2015/76 PROVIDES THAT THE CONTRACTS MUST BE CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE NATIONAL INTERVENTION AGENCIES AND PRODUCERS ' ' WHETHER AS INDIVIDUALS OR IN GROUPS ' '  ( ARTICLE 2 ) INTER ALIA IN RESPECT OF TABLE WINES ( ARTICLE 1 ) AND ONLY IN RESPECT OF PRODUCTS STORED ON THE TERRITORY OF THAT MEMBER STATE ( ARTICLE 3 ). ARTICLE 4 , WHICH REGULATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CONTRACT MUST BE DRAWN UP , PROVIDES INTER ALIA THAT IT MUST INCLUDE AS A TECHNICAL DETAIL ' ' THE PLACE OF STORAGE ' ' . ARTICLE 5 PROVIDES THAT CONTRACTS MUST , IN THE CASE OF WINE , RELATE TO A MINIMUM QUANTITY OF 100 HL . ARTICLE 7 , FINALLY , PROVIDES THAT ' ' THE MEMBER STATES SHALL TAKE ALL MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT THE NECESSARY CHECKS ARE MADE , AND IN PARTICULAR THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE PRODUCT UNDER CONTRACT MAY BE VERIFIED AND THAT THE VOLUME OF THE PRODUCT STORED AGREES WITH THAT SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT ' ' .    8 ACCORDING TO THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT , SUPPORTED IN THIS RESPECT BY THE COMMISSION , IT FOLLOWS BOTH FROM THE WORDING OF ARTICLES 4 ( 2 ) ( C ) AND 14 OF REGULATION NO 2015/76 - IN PARTICULAR FROM THE USE OF THE EXPRESSION ' ' PLACE OF STORAGE ' '  IN THE SINGULAR - AND FROM THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THAT REGULATION THAT THE MINIMUM QUANTITY OF 100 HL MUST BE STORED IN A SINGLE PLACE OF STORAGE , WHICH MEANS THAT THE QUANTITY STORED MUST BE STORED IF NOT IN THE SAME CELLAR AT LEAST IN CELLARS SITUATED ON ONE PLOT OF LAND . IT CLAIMS THAT THIS CONDITION FULFILS THE STRICT REQUIREMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE CHECK ON THE STORAGE OPERATIONS . ACCORDING TO THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN ACTION , ON THE CONTRARY , THE CONCLUSION CANNOT BE DRAWN EITHER FROM THE WORDING OR FROM THE OBJECTIVES OF REGULATION NO 2015/76 THAT THE WINE MUST BE STORED IN A SINGLE PLACE . SUCH A REQUIREMENT WOULD RESULT IN HANDICAPPING SMALL-SCALE PRODUCERS ; SOME DISPERSION OF THE QUANTITY OF 100 HL TO WHICH EACH CONTRACT MUST RELATE IS NOT LIKELY TO HINDER THE NECESSARY CHECKS .    9 THE USE OF THE EXPRESSION ' ' PLACE OF STORAGE ' '  IN THE SINGULAR IN ARTICLES 4 AND 14 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DECISIVE FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATION TO THE EFFECT THAT AN OBLIGATION IS IMPOSED IN STORAGE CONTRACTS TO STORE THE QUANTITY TO WHICH THAT CONTRACT RELATES IN A SINGLE PLACE . THE SINGULAR IS FREQUENTLY USED TO REFER TO SEVERAL OBJECTS IN THE LEGAL TERMINOLOGY OF BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND THE MEMBER STATES : ARTICLES 4 AND 14 ALSO CONTAIN SEVERAL EXPRESSIONS WHICH MAY NO DOUBT REFER EQUALLY EITHER TO ONE OR TO SEVERAL LEGAL PERSONS OR OBJECTS ( PRODUCER(S ), CONTRACT(S ), PRODUCT(S )). IT IS MOREOVER SIGNIFICANT THAT ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 8 OF THE REGULATION IS WORDED IN THE PLURAL IN GERMAN AND IN THE SINGULAR IN THE OTHER LANGUAGES THIS DIFFERENCE COULD NOT GIVE RISE TO DOUBTS AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT PROVISION .    10 IT IS NECESSARY TO CONCLUDE FROM THIS THAT THE EXPRESSION ' ' PLACE OF STORAGE ' '  CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 4 AND 14 CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO THE EFFECT THAT A DUTY TO STORE THE QUANTITY FORMING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CONTRACT IN A SINGLE PLACE MUST BE IMPOSED IN THE STORAGE CONTRACTS .    11 AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT BASED ON THE OBJECTIVES OF REGULATION NO 2015/76 , IT IS NECESSARY TO OBSERVE THAT IT FOLLOWS BOTH FROM THE RECITALS OF THE PREAMBLES TO REGULATIONS NOS 816/70 AND 2015/76 AND FROM THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE LATTER REGULATION THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF PRIVATE STORAGE AID IS TO HAVE AN EFFECT ON MARKET PRICES BY MEANS OF A REDUCTION IN SUPPLY AND THAT STORAGE CONTRACTS MUST THEREFORE RELATE TO SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES , IN OTHER WORDS QUANTITIES SUFFICIENT TO HAVE AN EFFECT ON MARKET PRICES ; FOR THIS REASON THE CONTRACTS MUST RELATE TO A MINIMUM QUANTITY OF 100 HL . THE ATTAINMENT OF THAT OBJECTIVE IS NOT HOWEVER LINKED TO THE STORAGE IN A SINGLE PLACE OF THE QUANTITIES TEMPORARILY REMOVED FROM THE MARKET . ON THE CONTRARY , THE DUTY TO STORE THE WINE IN A SINGLE STORAGE PLACE MIGHT FORM AN OBSTACLE TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED OBJECTIVE , IN PARTICULAR WHERE THE WINES ARE THOSE OF VARIOUS PRODUCERS WHO HAVE FORMED A GROUP .    12 AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT BASED ON THE NEED TO ENSURE AN EFFECTIVE CHECK ON THE STORAGE OPERATIONS , IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTEST THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE AND THAT THERE IS IN FACT A CONNEXION BETWEEN THE EFFECTIVENESS AND THE COST OF THE CHECKS AND THE DEGREE OF DISPERSION OF THE PLACES OF STORAGE . THIS FINDING DOES NOT HOWEVER LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A NEED TO IMPOSE A DUTY TO STORE THE WINE IN A SINGLE PLACE OF STORAGE AT THE RISK OF AFFECTING ADVERSELY THE OBJECTIVES OF THE STORAGE AID AND OF CREATING DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN LARGE AND SMALL PRODUCERS .    13 THIS DOES NOT HOWEVER MEAN THAT THE INTERVENTION AGENCIES ARE OBLIGED TO CONCLUDE STORAGE CONTRACTS NO MATTER HOW DISPERSED THE PLACES IN WHICH THE WINES ARE STORED . BY GIVING THE MEMBER STATES THE TASK OF AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADOPTING ' ' ALL MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT THE NECESSARY CHECKS ARE MADE ' ' , ARTICLE 7 OF REGULATION NO 2015/76 GRANTS THOSE MEMBER STATES A MARGIN OF DISCRETION IN DETERMINING , HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF THE WINE-GROWING ZONES IN QUESTION , TO WHAT EXTENT A MULTIPLICATION OF THE PLACES OF STORAGE WOULD BE LIKELY TO JEOPARDIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CHECK OR TO INCREASE ITS COSTS OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT AND THUS JUSTIFY A REFUSAL TO CONCLUDE A STORAGE CONTRACT .    14 IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO REPLY TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT THAT THE EXPRESSION ' ' PLACE OF STORAGE ' '  USED IN ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( C ) AND ARTICLE 14 OF REGULATION NO 2015/76 CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS OBLIGING THE NATIONAL INTERVENTION AGENCIES TO REFUSE TO CONCLUDE A STORAGE CONTRACT - FOR A QUANTITY , MOREOVER , OF AT LEAST 100 HL - WITH A PRODUCER OR GROUPS OF PRODUCERS OF TABLE WINE ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE QUANTITY FORMING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CONTRACT SOUGHT IS NOT STORED IN A SINGLE PLACE , IN OTHER WORDS ON ONE AND THE SAME PLOT OF LAND . HOWEVER IT IS FOR THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO DETERMINE , HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS IN THE WINE-GROWING ZONES IN QUESTION , TO WHAT EXTENT A MULTIPLICATION OF THE PLACES OF STORAGE , WHICH IS LIKELY TO JEOPARDIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CHECK ON STORAGE OPERATIONS OR TO MAKE THEM ABNORMALLY EXPENSIVE , ALLOWS THE CONCLUSION OF STORAGE CONTRACTS TO BE REFUSED .    

Decision on costs

COSTS  15 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED , IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT , THE DECISION AS TO COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .    

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ),   IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT FRANKFURT- AM-MAIN BY THREE ORDERS OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1978 ENTERED ON THE COURT REGISTER ON 26 OCTOBER 1978 , HEREBY RULES :   THE EXPRESSION ' ' PLACE OF STORAGE ' '  USED IN ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( C ) AND ARTICLE 14 OF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 2015/76 OF 13 AUGUST 1976 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1976 L 221 , P . 20 ) CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS OBLIGING THE NATIONAL INTERVENTION AGENCIES TO REFUSE TO CONCLUDE A STORAGE CONTRACT - FOR A MINIMUM QUANTITY , MOREOVER , OF 100 HL - WITH A PRODUCER OR GROUPS OF PRODUCERS OF TABLE WINE ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE QUANTITY FORMING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CONTRACT SOUGHT IS NOT STORED IN A SINGLE PLACE , THAT IS TO SAY ON ONE AND THE SAME PLOT OF LAND . HOWEVER IT IS FOR THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO DETERMINE , HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS IN THE WINE-GROWING ZONES IN QUESTION , TO WHAT EXTENT A MULTIPLICATION OF THE PLACES OF STORAGE , WHICH IS LIKELY TO JEOPARDIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CHECK ON STORAGE OPERATIONS OR TO MAKE THEM ABNORMALLY EXPENSIVE , ALLOWS THE CONCLUSION OF STORAGE CONTRACTS TO BE REFUSED .