Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 2 May 1990

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 Regulation of 5 February 1979 (OJ 1979, L 54, p. 1). That regulation has since been replaced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 (OJ 1987, L 84, p. 1).

3 Regulation of 25 July 1983 laying down general rules for distillation operations involving wine and the by-products of wine-making (OJ 1983, L 212, p. 1).

4 Regulation of 22 August 1983 laying down, for the 1983/84 wine-growing year, detailed implementing rules concerning the distillation provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 (OJ 1983, L 232, p. 5).

5 Regulation of 5 February 1979 determining the types of table wines (OJ 1979, L 54, p. 60). This regulation replaced Council Regulation (EEC) No 945/70 of 26 May 1970 (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 267).

6 This is a management committee procedure. We shall be coming back to this later on.

7 Sec the judgment of 30 January 1974 in Case 159/73 Hannoversche Zueker AG Rethen-Weetzen v Hauptzollamt Hannover [1974] ECR 121, in which the Court held that Member States were not entitled to adopt transitional rules for the entry into force of a regulation establishing a common organization of the market in the sugar sector even though no provision was made in the regulation for such transitional rules.

8 See the judgment of 18 June 1970 in Case 74/69 Hauptzollamt Bremen v Krohn [1979] ECR 451. This case was concerned with an imprecise provision in the Common Customs Tariff as regards the importation of starch.

9 Judgment of 28 March 1984 in Joined Cases 47/83 and 48/83 [1984] ECR 1721.

10 See paragraphs 19 to 28 of the judgment.

11 Judgment of 17 December 1970 in Case 30/70 Otto Scheer v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle Jur Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1187. In that judgment the Court conceded that during a transitional period the Member States retained jurisdiction pending the adoption by the Commission of implementing rules relating to the common organization in the cereals sector.

12 Moreover, as the representative of the Bundesamt rightly pointed out, this is borne out by Article 7(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2179/83, which provides as a condition for the grant of the aid that proof must be submitted that the total quantity of wine mentioned in the contract or declaration has been distilled, in other nords, there must be proof that the quantity of wine mentioned in the contract or declaration and the quantity of wine actually distilled tally This also shows that the exact specification of the particulars, which is necessary in order to grant the aid, constitutes a condition for the grant of the aid

13 According to information provided by the Bundesamt in its observations, those producers wrongly assumed that the German designation rules were also applicable in order to determine the wine type on the basis of which the aid was to be calculated.

14 According to the Bundesamt's observations, these are the German Weinverordnung, in the version indicated in the Bekanntmachung of 4 August 1983, Bundeigeielzblatt I, p. 1078.

15 This means in practice that at least 85% of the blended wine must have come from the vine variety indicated in the contract or declaration.

16 It is true that it follows from the answer given to the first question (see paragraph 11 above) that, in the case of a blend consisting of wines all of which have an actual alcoholic strength by volume of not less than 10% and not more than 12% (which therefore must be classed as Type A I), it is not necessary to mention the wine type of each of the constituents in the declaration.