Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In its judgment of 9 December 1981 in Case 193/80 (Commission v Italian Republic [1981] ECR 3019), the Court held that:

2. Following that judgment, Article 1 of Italian Law No 527 of 2 August 1982 (Gazzetta Ufficiale No 221 of 12 August 1982, p. 5735) laying down Rules relating to the production and marketing of agri (vinegars) authorized the importation and marketing, under the designation agro di (vinegar made from ... ) followed by the raw material from which it is obtained, of the product derived from the acetic fermentation of alcohol of agricultural origin fit for human consumption.

3. In the Commission's view, the Italian Law of 2 August 1982 is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Court's judgment of 9 December 1981 on the ground that it continues to restrict the designation vinegar exclusively to wine vinegar and its use is even rendered compulsory in connection with that product. It therefore constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the EEC Treaty.

4. The Court is aware that the Italian Government had drawn up a draft law which, had it been adopted, would no doubt have brought to an end the infringement complained of. That draft law has not yet been examined by the Italian Parliament.

5. It is exceptional for action to be taken against a Member State under Article 171 of the EEC Treaty for failure to fulfil an obligation. To my knowledge, this is only the third such action.

6. Accordingly, I suggest that the Court should:

1 Translated from the French.