Opinion of mr advocate general Mayras

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

I —. The Court has frequently held (the last occasion was on 29 June 1978 in the Dechmann case (154/77), paragraphs 8 and 9 of the decision that within the framework of proceedings brought under Article 177 of the Treaty it is not for the Court to give a ruling on the compatibility of rules of internal law with provisions of Community law, but that on the other hand the Court is competent to supply the national court with any criteria coming within Community law enabling that court to determine whether such rules are compatible with the Community rule evoked.

II —. The Law of 16 July 1969 which replaced the Law on wine of 25 July 1930 was itself replaced by the Law of 16 July 1971on wine, liqueur wine, sparkling wine, wine-based beverages and spirits made from wine. The draft of the text which became this law was substantially modified in order to take account of Regulations (EEC) Nos 816 and 817/70 of the Council of 28 April 1970 laying down additional provisions for the common organization of the market in wine.

III —. Before proceeding to deal with the questions referred it is appropriate to recall that the Commission has had the following confirmed by the Court's judgment of 20 February 1975 in Case 12/74 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany [1975] 1 ECR 181, namely that in order to be protected by law registered designations of origin and indications of ongin must describe a product coming from a specific geographical area. These appellations only fulfil their specific purpose if the product which they describe does in fact possess qualities and characteristics which are due to the fan that it originated in a specific geographical area and this must, particularly in the case of indications of origin, confer on the product a specific quality and specific characteristics of such a nature as to distinguish it from all other products.

IV —. As the German Government and the Commission have done in their respective submissions I think that it is appropriate to take and consider together the first two questions relating to the measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions resulting from the indirect indication of origin established by the German law.

V —. Finally since the plaintiff in the main action has submitted that the effen of the designation quality spirits made from wine or Weinbrand and the rules relating thereto is to concentrate imports of distillates in a small number of undertakings financially very sound which in fact have the monopoly of distillation, the national court asks this Court whether the German rules are incompatible with Articles 86 (b) and 90 (1).

I submit that the Court should rule:

The provisions of Article 36 do not justify such rules if they go further than is strictly necessary for the reasonable protection by the Member State in question of the health and life of humans and also of fair competition.

1 Translated Írom the French