Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
may not bear that designation and that wines protected by the denominación de
origen calificada Rioja may be put into circulation and be despatched solely
from registered cellars, in special bottles which do not detract from their quality
or prestige and have been approved by the Governing Council. The bottles
must be of glass and of a capacity authorised by the European Economic
Community with the exception of one-litre bottles.
The ECJ in response to a request from the Tribunal de Commerce (Commer-
cial Court), Brussels, for a ruling on the compatibility with Art 34 of the Treaty
of national legislation such as Decree No 157/88 and the Rioja Rules adopted
under it, held that national provisions applicable to wine of designated origin
which limited the quantity of wine that might be exported in bulk but otherwise
permitted sales of wine in bulk within the region of production constituted
measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports which
were prohibited by Art 34 of the EC Treaty. The Spanish government's
argument that the supervisory powers vested in the Rioja Governing Council
were limited to the region of production, making it necessary for the wine to be
bottled in the region of production, was rejected by the Court on the ground
that Regulation (EEC) No 986/89 had established a system for verifying that
the authenticity of the wine was not affected during transport (para 21). In 1994
the Belgian government drew the Commission's attention to the fact that the
Spanish rules at issue in
Delhaize
were still in force, despite the interpretation of
Art 34 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Art 29 EC) given by the Court in
that judgment, and called on it to act. On 14 November 1994 the competent
member of the Commission replied that the Commission considered it
'inappropriate' to persist with Treaty-infringement cases. The Belgian govern-
ment and the Danish, Netherlands, Finnish and UK governments, intervening
in its support, claimed that, by not amending Decree No 157/88 in order to
comply with the
Delhaize
judgment, the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil
its obligations under Art 5, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the
European Communities in its judgment of 9 June 1992 and Art 5 of the EC
Treaty (now Art 10 EC).
3.52
The Spanish, Italian and Portuguese governments and the Commission
adduced new information to demonstrate that the reasons underlying the
contested requirement were capable of justifying it. They argued that particu-
larly in the wines sector, Community legislation displays a general tendency to
enhance the quality of products within the framework of the CAP, in order to
promote the reputation of those products through, inter alia, the use of
designations of origin which enjoy special protection. In relation to Rioja wine,
the Court accepted that its particular qualities and characteristics result from a
combination of natural and human factors that are linked to its geographical
3.53
