1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector (OJ 2008 L 170, p. 1).
2 The request has been made in the context of proceedings between Vinařství U Kapličky s. r. o. and the Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce, ústřední inspektorát (Central Inspectorate of the National Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority, Czech Republic; ‘the central inspectorate’) in relation to a fine it imposed on that company for putting into circulation consignments of Moldovan wine which had undergone oenological practices not authorised by EU law.
3 Article 82 of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2008 L 148, p. 1), provided: ‘1. Save as otherwise provided for, in particular in agreements concluded pursuant to [Article 218 TFEU], the provisions concerning designations of origin and geographical indications and labelling set out in Chapters III and IV of Title III of this Regulation, where applicable, as well as Article 25(2) of this Regulation shall apply to products falling under CN codes 200961, 200969 and 2204 which are imported into the Community. 2. Save as otherwise provided in agreements concluded pursuant to [Article 218 TFEU], products referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the [International Organisation of Vine and Wine] or authorised by the Community pursuant to this Regulation and its implementing measures. 3. The importation of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the presentation of: (a) a certificate evincing compliance with the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, to be drawn up by a competent body, included on a list to be made public by the Commission, in the country from which the product comes; (b) an analysis report drawn up by a body or department designated by the country from which the product comes, in so far as the product is intended for direct human consumption.’
4 That regulation was repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of 25 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2009 L 154, p. 1).
5 The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 491/2009 states that references to Regulation No 479/2008 are to be construed as references to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1), as amended by Regulation No 491/2009 (‘Regulation No 1234/2007’), and are to be read in accordance with the respective correlation table set out in Annex XXII to Regulation No 1234/2007.
6 According to the correlation table set out in point 47 of Annex XXII to Regulation No 1234/2007, Article 82 of Regulation No 479/2008 corresponds to Article 158a of Regulation No 1234/2007.
7 Article 1(1) of Regulation No 555/2008 was worded as follows: ‘This Regulation lays down implementing rules concerning the application of the following provisions of [Regulation No 479/2008]: … (b) trade with third countries (Title IV); …’
8 Article 40 of Regulation No 555/2008 provided: ‘The certificate and the analysis report referred to in Article 82(3)(a) and (b), respectively, of [Regulation No 479/2008] shall form a single document: (a) the “certificate” part of which shall be made out by a body of the third country from which the products comes; (b) the “analysis report” part of which shall be made out by an official laboratory recognised by the third country from which the products comes.’
9 Article 43(1) of Regulation No 555/2008 stated: ‘The certificate and analysis report for each consignment intended for import into the Community shall be drawn up on a single V I 1 document. The document referred to in the first subparagraph shall be drawn up on a V I 1 form corresponding to the specimen shown in Annex IX. It shall be signed by an officer of an official body and by an official of a recognised laboratory as referred to in Article 48.’
10 Article 47(1), first subparagraph, of that regulation provided: ‘The original and the copy of V I 1 documents or V I 2 extracts shall be handed over to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the customs formalities required for putting into free circulation the consignment to which they relate are carried out, on completion of those formalities.’
11 Box 9, entitled ‘Certificate’, of the specimen of the V I 1 form set out in Annex IX to that regulation was worded as follows: ‘The product described above … ☐ is/ ☐ is not intended for direct human consumption, complies with the Community definitions of categories of grapevine products and has been produced using oenological practices … ☐ recommended and published by the [International Organisation of Vine and Wine]/ ☐ authorised by the Community. Full name and address of the official agency: Place and date: Signature, name and title of official Stamp:’
12 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/273 of 11 December 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the scheme of authorisations for vine plantings, the vineyard register, accompanying documents and certification, the inward and outward register, compulsory declarations, notifications and publication of notified information, and supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the relevant checks and penalties, amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 555/2008, (EC) No 606/2009 and (EC) No 607/2009 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 436/2009 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/560 (OJ 2018 L 58, p. 1), repealed, pursuant to Article 52 thereof, Articles 1 and 38 to 54 of Regulation No 555/2008 and Annex IX thereto.
13 Article 56 of Delegated Regulation 2018/273 states that it enters into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
14 Article 64(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549, and corrigendum OJ 2016 L 130, p. 6), provides: ‘1. As regards the administrative penalties referred to in Article 63(2), this Article shall apply in cases of non-compliance in relation to eligibility criteria, commitments or other obligations resulting from the application of sectoral agricultural legislation, with the exception of those referred to in Articles 67 to 78 of Chapter II of this Title and in Articles 91 to 101 of Title VI and of those subject to the penalties provided for in Article 89(3) and 89(4). 2. No administrative penalties shall be imposed: (a) where the non-compliance is due to force majeure; (b) where the non-compliance is due to obvious errors as referred to in Article 59(6); (c) where the non-compliance is due to an error of the competent authority or another authority, and where the error could not reasonably have been detected by the person concerned by the administrative penalty; (d) where the person concerned can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that he or she is not at fault for the non-compliance with the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 or if the competent authority is otherwise satisfied that the person concerned is not at fault; …’
15 Article 89(4) of that regulation provides: ‘Without prejudice to acts regarding the wine sector adopted on the basis of Article 64, in the event of infringement of Union rules in the wine sector, Member States shall apply proportionate, effective and dissuasive administrative penalties. Such penalties shall not apply in the cases set out in points (a) to (d) of Article 64(2) and where the non-compliance is of a minor nature.’
16 Article 80(1) to (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671), provides: ‘1. Only oenological practices authorised in accordance with Annex VIII and provided for in point (g) of Article 75(3) and in Article 83(2) and (3) shall be used in the production and conservation of the products listed in Part II of Annex VII in the Union. … Authorised oenological practices shall only be used for the purposes of ensuring proper vinification, proper preservation or proper refinement of the product. Products listed in Part II of Annex VII shall be produced in the Union in accordance with the rules laid down in Annex VIII. 2. Products listed in Part II of Annex VII shall not be marketed in the Union if: (a) they have undergone unauthorised Union oenological practices; (b) they have undergone unauthorised national oenological practices; or (c) they do not comply with the rules laid down in Annex VIII. … 3. When authorising oenological practices for wine as referred to in point (g) of Article 75(3), the Commission shall: (a) take into account the oenological practices and methods of analyses recommended and published by the [International Organisation of Vine and Wine], as well as the results of experimental use of as-yet unauthorised oenological practices; … (f) respect the general rules concerning oenological practices and the rules laid down in Annex VIII.’
17 Article 90 of that regulation is worded as follows: ‘1. Save as otherwise provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU, the provisions concerning designation of origin and geographical indications and labelling of wine set out in Section 2 of this Chapter, and the definitions, designations and sales descriptions referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation shall apply to products imported into the Union and falling within CN codes 200961, 200969 and 2204. 2. Save as otherwise provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU, products referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be produced in accordance with oenological practices authorised by the Union pursuant to this Regulation or, prior to the authorisation pursuant to Article 80(3), produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the [International Organisation of Vine and Wine]. 3. The import of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the presentation of: (a) a certificate evincing compliance with the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, drawn up by a competent body, included on a list to be made public by the Commission, in the product’s country of origin; (b) an analysis report drawn up by a body or department designated by the product’s country of origin, if the product is intended for direct human consumption.’
18 Article 230(1) and (2) of that regulation provides: ‘1. [Regulation No 1234/2007] is repealed. … 2. References to [Regulation No 1234/2007] shall be construed as references to this Regulation and to [Regulation No 1306/2013] and be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex XIV to this Regulation.’
19 Part XII of Annex I to Regulation No 1308/2013 provides: ‘The wine sector shall cover the products listed in the following table: CN code Description (a) 2009 61 2009 69 Grape juice (including grape must) … … (b) ex 2204 Wine of fresh grapes, including fortified wines; grape must other than that of heading 2009, excluding other grape must of subheadings 2204 30 92, 2204 30 94, 2204 30 96 and 2204 30 98 … … …
20 Point 1 of Part II of Annex VII to that regulation is worded as follows: ‘Wine “Wine” means the product obtained exclusively from the total or partial alcoholic fermentation of fresh grapes, whether or not crushed, or of grape must. …’
21 Annex VIII to that regulation, entitled ‘Oenological practices referred to in Article 80’, provides, in Part I A: ‘Enrichment limits 1. Where climatic conditions have made it necessary in certain wine-growing zones of the Union, the Member States concerned may allow to supplement the natural alcoholic strength by volume of fresh grapes, grape must, grape must in fermentation, new wine still in fermentation and wine obtained from wine grape varieties classifiable according to Article 81. 2. The increase in natural alcoholic strength by volume shall be achieved by means of the oenological practices referred to in Section B and shall not exceed the following limits: (a) 3% volume in wine-growing zone A; (b) 2% volume in wine-growing zone B; (c) 1.5% volume in wine-growing zones C. …’
22 Part II of Annex VIII of that regulation is worded as follows: ‘A. General 1. All authorised oenological practices shall exclude the addition of water, except where required on account of a specific technical necessity. … C. Blending of wines Coupage of a wine originating in a third country with a Union wine and coupage between wines originating in third countries shall be prohibited in the Union. …’
23 According to the correlation table set out in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1308/2013, Article 158a of Regulation No 1234/2007 corresponds to Article 90 of Regulation No 1308/2013.
24 Paragraph 39(1)(ff) of the zákon č. 321/2004 Sb., o vinohradnictví a vinařství (Law No 321/2004 on viticulture and viniculture), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, provides: ‘A legal or natural person, as a person producing or marketing a product, commits an administrative offence in failing to comply with obligations laid down by [EU] legislation on viticulture, the winemaking sector or trading in wine.’
25 Paragraph 40(1) of Law No 321/2004 on viticulture and viniculture is worded as follows: ‘A legal person shall not be held responsible for an administrative offence if it shows that it did not fail to take any step which might have been required of it to prevent infringement of the obligation.’
26 By decision of 14 January 2016, the Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce, Inspektorát v Brně (National Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority, Brno Section, Czech Republic) imposed a fine of 2100000 Czech koruny (CZK) (approximately EUR 80000) on Vinařství U Kapličky and demanded reimbursement of laboratory analysis fees of CZK 86420 (approximately EUR 3000), on the basis that that company had put into circulation, in the Czech Republic, consignments of wine imported from Moldova which had undergone unauthorised oenological practices, contrary to Article 80(2)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013, or which did not comply with the rules set out in Annex VIII to Regulation No 1308/2013, contrary to Article 80(2)(c) of that regulation.
27 On the basis of laboratory tests carried out on the samples taken during a control (inspection) at Vinařství U Kapličky, the National Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority, Brno Section, found that the consignments of wine in question did not comply, to varying degrees, with the rules relating to authorised oenological practices on the ground, in particular, that the enrichment of the natural alcoholic strength by volume exceeded the 3% volume limit.
28 By decision of 4 August 2016, the central inspectorate dismissed the administrative proceedings brought by Vinařství U Kapličky against the decision of 14 January 2016.
29 Vinařství U Kapličky brought an appeal against the decision of 4 August 2016 before the Krajský soud v Brně (Regional Court, Brno, Czech Republic), claiming, in particular, that the central inspectorate should have exonerated it from liability for the offences at issue on the basis of the V I 1 documents drawn up for the consignments of wine in question by the competent Moldovan authorities, pursuant to Regulation No 555/2008.
30 On 26 April 2018, the Krajský soud v Brně (Regional Court, Brno) annulled the decision of the central inspectorate of 4 August 2016 and referred the case back to it. That court held, in that regard, that it was not ruled out, in principle, that Vinařství U Kapličky could avoid liability for the offences at issue on the basis of the V I 1 documents drawn up by the competent Moldovan authorities and that other circumstances should have been taken into account by the central inspectorate in order to determine whether Vinařství U Kapličky should have been exonerated from liability for the offences at issue.
31 The central inspectorate brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment.
32 On 16 August 2018, the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic) quashed the judgment of the Krajský soud v Brně (Regional Court, Brno) and sent the case back to that court, on the basis that the V I 1 documents were merely an administrative formality undertaken for the purposes of bringing the consignments of wine in question into the European Union and the presentation of such documents is not sufficient to exonerate the person marketing the consignments from liability for the offences at issue.
33 Following that judgment, on 21 November 2018, the Krajský soud v Brně (Regional Court, Brno) dismissed the appeal brought by Vinařství U Kapličky against the decision of the central inspectorate of 4 August 2016.
34 Vinařství U Kapličky brought an appeal on a point of law and lodged a constitutional appeal against that judgment of the Krajský soud v Brně (Regional Court, Brno).
35 The appeal on a point of law was dismissed by the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court) on 27 March 2019.
36 By contrast, the Ústavní soud (Constitutional Court, Czech Republic), by judgment of 5 September 2019, held that Vinařství U Kapličky’s right to a fair hearing had been infringed, by reason of the fact that the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court) had rejected Vinařství U Kapličky’s argument based on the binding nature of the certificate appearing in the V I 1 document without first referring a question to the Court under Article 267 TFEU.
37 Against that background, the Krajský soud v Brně (Regional Court, Brno) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does a V I 1 document issued under [Regulation No 555/2008] containing a certificate issued by an authorised body from a third country certifying that the product has been produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the [International Organisation of Vine and Wine] or approved by the [European Union] constitute a mere administrative condition for the entry of wine into the territory of the European Union? (2) Does EU law preclude a national rule which allows a dealer of wine imported from Moldova to avoid liability for the administrative offence of marketing wine which has undergone oenological practices not allowed in the [European Union], unless the national authorities refute the dealer’s assumption that the wine was produced in accordance with oenological practices approved by the European Union, which the dealer made on the basis of the V I 1 document issued by the Moldovan authorities under [Regulation No 555/2008]?’
38 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 80(2)(a) and (c) and Article 90(3)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the certificate appearing in a V I 1 document, drawn up for a consignment of wine imported into the European Union under Regulation No 555/2008, according to which that consignment was produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (‘the OIV’) or authorised by the European Union, is relevant in order to determine whether the consignment complies with the oenological practices referred to in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013.
39 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that Regulation No 555/2008, as is apparent from Article 1(1)(b) thereof, lays down implementing rules concerning the application of certain provisions of Regulation No 479/2008, in particular those relating to trade with third countries.
40 In addition, whilst several provisions of Regulation No 555/2008, in particular Articles 1 and 38 to 54 and Annex IX thereto, were repealed by Article 52 of Delegated Regulation 2018/273, they were still in force on the date that the V I 1 document was drawn up and that of the entry into the European Union of the consignments of wine at issue in the main proceedings, so that those provisions may be relevant in answering the questions referred.
41 Article 40 of Regulation No 555/2008, which appeared in Chapter II, entitled ‘Certificates and analysis reports for wine, grape juice and must on import’, of Title III of that regulation, provided that the certificate and the analysis report referred to in Article 82(3)(a) and (b), respectively, of Regulation No 479/2008 formed a single document, the ‘certificate’ part of which was made out by a body of the third country from which the product came.
42 Although that provision referred to Article 82 of Regulation No 479/2008, that reference must be construed, in the light of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 491/2009 and Article 230(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013, as referring, at the time of the facts giving rise to the main proceedings, to the certificate and the analysis report referred to in Article 90(3)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 respectively.
43 Article 90(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 provides that, save as otherwise provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU, the wine must be produced in accordance with oenological practices authorised by the European Union pursuant to that regulation or, prior to the authorisation from the Commission of such practices pursuant to Article 80(3) of that regulation, in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV.
44 Article 90(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1308/2013 provides that the import of wine is subject to the presentation of a certificate evincing compliance with the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of that article, drawn up by a competent body, included on a list to be made public by the Commission, in the product’s country of origin, and an analysis report drawn up by a body or department designated by the product’s country of origin.
45 It should be noted, in that regard, that Article 43(1) of Regulation No 555/2008 provided, in essence, that the certificate and analysis report for each consignment intended for import into the European Union were drawn up on a single V I 1 document corresponding to the specimen shown in Annex IX to that regulation.
46 Box 9 of that specimen, entitled ‘Certificate’, required that it be indicated whether the product concerned was intended for direct human consumption, whether it complied with the Community definitions of categories of grapevine products and whether it had been produced using oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV or authorised by the European Union.
47 Article 47(1) of Regulation No 555/2008 provided that the original and the copy of V I 1 document or V I 2 extract were to be handed over to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the customs formalities required for putting into free circulation the consignment to which they related were carried out, on completion of those formalities.
48 It is apparent from the provisions cited in the foregoing paragraphs that the V I 1 document, referred to in Article 43(1) of Regulation No 555/2008, was to be drawn up, for each consignment of wine intended for import into the European Union, by a competent body of the third country from which the product originated and which was to be handed over on completion of the customs formalities required for putting into free circulation the consignment in question.
49 It also follows from those provisions that the purpose of that document was to enable the customs authorities to verify whether the consignment complied with the conditions to be met for import into the European Union, in particular those laid down in Article 90(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 relating to compliance with oenological practices authorised by the European Union or recommended and published by the OIV.
50 In those circumstances, it is necessary, in order to answer the first question, to determine whether the recognised purpose of the V I 1 document also applies to the assessment of the conformity of the consignment of wine in question with the oenological practices referred to in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013.
51 In that regard, it should be noted that that provision states that the products listed in Part II of Annex VII to that regulation are not to be marketed in the European Union if they have undergone unauthorised EU oenological practices or if they do not comply with the rules laid down in Annex VIII to that regulation.
52 So far as concerns, first, the products covered by that prohibition, Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 refers, in general, to products listed in Part II of Annex VII to that regulation, regardless of their place origin.
53 Furthermore, Part II, entitled ‘Categories of grapevine products’, refers, in point 1 thereof, to wine.
54 It must therefore be found that the marketing prohibition provided for in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 covers, inter alia, consignments of wine imported from third countries.
55 As for, second, the oenological practices covered by that provision, Article 80(2)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013 refers, in general, to unauthorised EU oenological practices.
56 Article 80(2)(c) of that regulation covers the rules laid down in Annex VIII to that regulation.
57 In that regard, whilst Part I of Annex VIII to that regulation lays down rules relating, inter alia, to enrichment in certain wine-growing zones of the European Union, which therefore relate only to consignments of wine produced in the European Union, Part II of that annex sets out more general rules which are also intended to apply to wine originating in third countries.
58 It follows that, like Article 90(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013, Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of that regulation lays down requirements with regard to compliance with certain oenological practices that must be met by consignments of wine originating, inter alia, in third countries, with the latter imposing such conditions only for the marketing of those products, not for their import into the European Union.
59 Although the conditions laid down in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) and Article 90(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 respectively are set out differently, in so far as the first of those provisions concerns compliance with authorised EU oenological practices and the rules laid down in Annex VIII to that regulation and the second concerns compliance with oenological practices authorised by the European Union under that regulation or, prior to authorisation from the Commission of such practices, oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV, it must be found that, with regard to consignments of wine imported into the Union, the V I 1 document may prove useful for the purposes of verifying whether such consignments fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013.
60 It must be noted, in the first place, that, as is apparent from paragraph 49 above, the certificate appearing in the V I 1 document drawn up for a consignment of wine imported into the Union on the basis of Article 43 of Regulation No 555/2008, according to which the consignment has undergone authorised Union oenological practices, is of some relevance for the purposes of assessing the conformity of that consignment with such oenological practices.
61 Moreover, it is evident from Article 90(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013, read in conjunction with Article 80(3) thereof, that it is for the Commission to authorise EU oenological practices on the basis of that provision.
62 Article 80(3)(f) of that regulation states that, when authorising oenological practices, the Commission is to respect the general rules on oenological practices and the rules laid down in Annex VIII to that regulation.
63 In the second place, whilst the certificate appearing in the V I 1 document drawn up for a consignment of wine imported into the European Union on the basis of Article 43 of Regulation No 555/2008 may relate only to the conformity of the consignment with oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV, it must be noted that the Court has held that the recommendations of the OIV are particularly relevant with regard to rules of EU law on oenological practices (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 October 2014, Germany v Council, C‑399/12, EU:C:2014:2258, paragraphs 61 to 64).
64 In those circumstances, it should be considered that a certificate appearing in the V I 1 document drawn up for a consignment of wine imported into the European Union on the basis of Article 43 of Regulation No 555/2008, according to which the consignment has undergone in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV or authorised by the European Union, is of some relevance for the purposes of assessing the conformity of that consignment with the requirements laid down in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013.
65 In view of the above, it must be noted, on the one hand, that, whilst it is apparent from Article 90(3) of that regulation that the EU legislature expressly provided that such a certificate makes it possible to determine whether the consignment of wine in question complies with the oenological practices referred to in Article 90(2) of that regulation, it did not confer such an effect on that certificate, which is, moreover, drawn up by a body of a third country, so far as concerns the marketing prohibition provided for in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of that regulation.
66 On the other, as the Advocate General noted in point 39 of his Opinion, the non-conformity with oenological practices authorised by EU law of a consignment of wine may result from events taking place after the V I 1 document has been issued, which could occur in particular during transport.
67 In so far as a certificate appearing in a V I 1 document, as provided for in Article 43(1) of Regulation No 555/2008, is drawn up by the competent authorities of the third country from which the consignment originates, with a view to completing the customs formalities required for importing the consignment into the European Union, a considerable period of time may pass between the certificate being drawn up and the consignment being marketed within the territory of the European Union.
68 In the light of those elements, it cannot be considered that the existence of such a certificate is sufficient on its own to establish that a consignment of wine complies with authorised EU oenological practices.
69 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the first question is that Article 80(2)(a) and (c) and Article 90(3)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the certificate appearing in a V I 1 document, drawn up for a consignment of wine imported into the European Union under Article 43 of Regulation No 555/2008, according to which that consignment was produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV or authorised by the European Union, is relevant in order to determine whether the consignment complies with the oenological practices referred to in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013, but is not sufficient on its own to establish such compliance.
70 By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether EU law must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State providing that, where a person marketing, in that Member State, a consignment of wine imported from a third country that does not comply with the oenological practices referred to in Article 80(2)(a) or (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 produces a V I 1 document drawn up for that consignment and certifying that the consignment has undergone oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV or authorised by the European Union, the burden of proving the existence of fault on the part of the trader for the infringement of the marketing prohibition provided for in Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 is on the competent authorities of that Member State.
71 As noted in paragraphs 51 to 57 above, Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 prohibits the marketing, in the European Union, of consignments of wine imported from third countries which have undergone unauthorised EU oenological practices, or which do not comply with the rules laid down in Annex VIII to that regulation.
72 In addition, Article 89(4) of Regulation No 1306/2013 provides that, in the event of infringement of EU rules in the wine sector, Member States are to apply proportionate, effective and dissuasive administrative penalties. That provision states, however, that such penalties are not to apply in the cases set out in points (a) to (d) of Article 64(2) and where the non-compliance is of a minor nature.
73 Article 64(2)(d) of that regulation states that the Member States may not impose administrative penalties where the person concerned can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that he or she is not at fault for the non-compliance with the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 thereof or if the competent authority is otherwise satisfied that the person concerned is not at fault.
74 It therefore follows from a combined reading of Article 64(2)(d) and Article 89(4) of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 that the Member States must provide for proportionate, effective and dissuasive penalties in case of non-compliance with the marketing prohibition provided for in Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013, but that such penalties cannot be applied where it is established that the person concerned is not at fault.
75 In so far as those regulations do not contain more specific provisions relating, in particular, to the production of evidence, under the principle of procedural autonomy and subject to the principles of equivalency and effectiveness, it is for the national legal order of each Member State to establish the ways in which evidence is to be elicited, what evidence is to be admissible, or the principles governing the assessment of the probative value of the evidence adduced and also the level of proof required (see, by analogy, judgment of 21 June 2017, W and Others, C‑621/15, EU:C:2017:484, paragraphs 24 and 25).
76 That being said, the national rules governing how evidence is to be adduced and appraised thus provided for must not be such as to undermine the apportionment of the burden of proof as expressly provided for by Regulation No 1306/2013 (see, by analogy, judgment of 21 June 2017, W and Others, C‑621/15, EU:C:2017:484, paragraph 27).
77 Article 64(2)(d) of Regulation No 1306/2013 stipulates that it is for the person accused of having infringed the marketing prohibition provided for in Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 to establish that he or she is not at fault for the non-compliance with that prohibition.
78 Furthermore, whilst it is admittedly apparent from Article 64(2)(d) of Regulation No 1306/2013 that the competent authority may not impose penalties if it is otherwise satisfied that the person concerned is not at fault, such an obligation to take into account the elements available to that authority cannot imply that it is, in principle, for the latter to establish that the person is at fault before penalties can be imposed on him or her.
79 In that regard, it follows from the considerations set out in paragraphs 65 to 68 above that the person accused of having infringed the marketing prohibition provided for in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 cannot presume that he or she complies with that prohibition solely because he or she has produced a V I 1 document in respect of the consignment of wine in question and that, consequently, the person concerned cannot establish that he or she is not at fault simply by producing such a document.
80 It follows that Article 64(2)(d) of Regulation No 1306/2013 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State placing the burden of proving the existence of fault on the part of the person concerned on the competent authorities, including where that legislation provides for such an allocation of the burden of proof only where that person produces a V I 1 document drawn up for the consignment of wine in question certifying that the consignment has undergone oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV or authorised by the European Union.
81 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the second question is that Article 89(4) of Regulation No 1306/2013, read in conjunction with Article 64(2)(d) of that regulation and Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that provides that, where a person marketing, in that Member State, a consignment of wine imported from a third country that does not comply with the oenological practices referred to in Article 80(2)(a) or (c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 produces a V I 1 document drawn up for that consignment certifying that the consignment has undergone oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV or authorised by the European Union, the burden of proving the existence of fault on the part of the trader for the infringement of the marketing prohibition provided for in Article 80(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013 is on the competent authorities of that Member State.
82 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.