Report for the Hearing delivered in Case 26/86

I — Summary of the facts

Regulation No 3309/85 (Official Journal 1985, L 320, p. 9) lays down inter alia information which may, subject to certain requirements, be provided on bottles of sparkling wine. That information includes information relating to the method of production. Article 6 distinguishes between the expression bottle-fermented (paragraph (3)) and the expression bottle-fermented by the traditional method or traditional method (paragraph (4)). According to the second subparagraph of paragraph (4), the last expression may only be used if the product:

Article 6 (5) provides that:

An expression relating to a method of production which includes the name of a specified region or of another geographical unit, or a term derived from either of these (first subparagraph) ... may be used only to describe a product entitled to one of the geographical ascriptions... (second subparagraph).

The third subparagraph of Article 6 (5) contains a temporary derogation from that rule:

The fourth subparagraph of Article 6 (5) makes the use of the expression méthode champenoise subject to the abovementioned conditions laid down by the second subparagraph of Article 6 (4) for the use of the expressions bottle-fermented by the traditional method or traditional method.

The regulation took effect on 1 September 1986 (Article 18).

II — Written procedure and conclusions of the parties

1. The application made by Deutz und Geldermann was lodged at the Court Registry on 31 January 1986.

2. By an order of 4 June 1986, the Court granted leave to the Commission to intervene in support of the Council's conclusions.

3. The applicant claims that the Court should:

4. By an application on a procedural issue made pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure, the Council raised an objection of inadmissibility. It contends that the Court should:

5. The Commission, an intervener, claims that the Court should:

6. The written procedure followed the normal course.

7. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry solely on the question of admissibility alone, without examining the substance, and, pursuant to Article 95 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, assigned the case to the Sixth Chamber.

III — Submissions and arguments on the objection of inadmissibility

1. The Council and the Commission take the view that Article 6 (5) is of a legislative nature, applies to objectively determined factual situations and produces legal effects with regard to categories of persons described generally and in the abstract. Both the prohibition of indeterminate duration laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 6 (5) and the temporary derogation from that prohibition contained in the third subparagraph are applicable to all present and future traders in sparkling wines which are produced in the Community or imported.

2. The applicant objects to the reference made by the Council in its objection of inadmissibility to sparkling-wine merchants. The expression méthode champenoise designates solely a method of production and therefore can be used only by producers and not by merchants. The applicant proposes that an expert's report be obtained with regard to that point.

1 Language of the Case: German.