Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

++++
AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - WINE MARKET - VITICULTURAL LAND REGISTER - PREPARATION - OBLIGATION OF THE MEMBER STATES
( REGULATION NO 24 OF THE COUNCIL ON THE PROGRESSIVE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN WINE, ARTICLE 1; REGULATION NO 92/63/EEC OF THE COUNCIL AMENDING ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 24 )

ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 24 AND REGULATION NO 92/63/EEC MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT MEMBER STATES WERE REQUIRED WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN BY THOSE PROVISIONS TO PREPARE A VITICULTURAL LAND REGISTER CAPABLE OF FULFILLING ITS PURPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY REGULATION NO 24 .

IN CASE 33/69
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, GIANCARLO OLMI, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF EMILE REUTER, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION, 4, BOULEVARD ROYAL, APPLICANT,
V
GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, REPRESENTED BY ADOLFO MARESCA, MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY PIETRO PERONACI, DEPUTY STATE ADVOCATE-GENERAL, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE EMBASSY OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, DEFENDANT,

APPLICATION UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR A RULING THAT THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 24 OF THE COUNCIL ON THE PROGRESSIVE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN WINE ( OJ, SPECIAL EDITION 1959 - 1962, P . 123 ) AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 92/63/EEC OF THE COUNCIL ( OJ, SPECIAL EDITION 1963 - 1964, P . 44 ) BY ITS FAILURE TO PREPARE A VITICULTURAL LAND REGISTER WITHIN THE PERIOD FIXED BY THE SAID ARTICLE,

THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE DISPUTE
1 FOLLOWING ITS REASONED OPINION OF 3 FEBRUARY 1969, THE COMMISSION BY AN APPLICATION LODGED ON 23 JULY 1969 REQUESTED THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY " TO DECLARE THAT THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, BY FAILING TO PREPARE THE VITICULTURAL LAND REGISTER WITHIN THE PERIOD FIXED BY ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 24 ( OJ, SPECIAL EDITION 1959 - 1962, P . 123 ), AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 92/63/EEC ( OJ, SPECIAL EDITION 1963 - 1964, P . 44 ), HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS PROVISION ".
2 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE AND FROM THE ORAL PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE COMMISSION IS REQUESTING THE COURT TO RULE WHETHER THE FAILURE EXISTED AT THE END OF THE PERIOD FIXED BY THE REASONED OPINION .
SUBSTANCE
3 THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS THAT THE DUTY IMPOSED UPON THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES REFERS TO THE COMPLETION OF A REGISTER CAPABLE OF FULFILLING ITS PURPOSE, WHILST ACCORDING TO THE DEFENDANT IT ONLY RELATES TO THE CREATION OF THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH A REGISTER .
4 IN SUPPORT OF ITS INTERPRETATION THE DEFENDANT FIRST OF ALL INVOKES THE ITALIAN VERSION OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 24 WHICH IS WORDED AS FOLLOWS : " ENTRO IL 30 GIUGNO 1963 GLI STATI MEMBRI ISTITUISCONO UN CATASTO VITICOLO CHE SARA TENUTO AGGIORNATO ".
IN ITS VIEW THE TERM " PREPARE " ( " ISTITUIRE " ) HAS THE SAME LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AS " PROVIDE A LEGAL BASIS FOR ".
5 AS A COMPARISON OF THE FOUR VERSIONS OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISION IN THE VARIOUS LANGUAGES DOES NOT LEAD TO A DECISIVE RESULT, THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 24, PARTICULARLY ARTICLE 1 THEREOF, MUST BE ANALYSED .
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT PROVISION : " THIS REGISTER, BASED ON THE GENERAL VINEYARD CENSUS, SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM INFORMATION :
( A ) THE TOTAL AREA UNDER VINES;
( B ) THE AREA UNDER VINES SUBDIVIDED ACCORDING TO TYPE OF PRODUCTION;
( C ) THE METHOD OF MANAGEMENT OF PLANTATIONS;
( D ) THE CLASSIFICATION OF VINE PLANTATIONS ACCORDING TO SURFACE AREA;
( E ) THE CLASSIFICATION OF AREAS UNDER VINES ACCORDING TO AGE OF VINE-STOCKS;
( F ) CLASSIFICATION OF VINE VARIETIES ACCORDING TO YEAR OF PLANTING ".
6 IT FOLLOWS FROM THOSE PROVISIONS THAT THE " REGISTER " WAS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE ALL THE ABOVE-MENTIONED INFORMATION AND COMPRISE A COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS LIST . SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IS CONFIRMED BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THIS INFORMATION SHALL BE " KEPT UP TO DATE " IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE SAID ARTICLE, WHICH CLEARLY PRESUPPOSES THAT THE INFORMATION HAS ALREADY BEEN OBTAINED . IT IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE CONTENT OF REGULATION NO 92/63/EEC BY WHICH THE COUNCIL, ON A PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION, EXTENDED UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 1964 THE PERIOD FIXED BY REGULATION NO 24 FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE VITICULTURAL LAND REGISTER .
7 IN FACT BY A LETTER OF 29 MARCH 1963 ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION, THE DEFENDANT HAD REQUESTED THIS EXTENSION STATING THAT IF THE APPLICANT' S INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION NO 24 WERE ACCEPTED IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE " A PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY TO COMPLETE ALL THE NECESSARY WORK BY JUNE 1963 ", SINCE " COMPLEX AND ONEROUS SURVEYS " WERE REQUIRED . THIS ARGUMENT CONFIRMS THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE REGULATION INTENDS TO OBLIGE THE MEMBER STATES TO SET UP WITHIN THE PERIOD IN QUESTION A REGISTER CAPABLE OF FULFILLING ITS PURPOSE .
8 AGAINST THIS INTERPRETATION, THE DEFENDANT POINTS OUT THAT REGULATION NO 143 OF THE COMMISSION ( OJ, SPECIAL EDITION 1959 - 1962, P . 293 ), RELATING SOLELY TO THE " INITIAL PROVISIONS " FOR PREPARING THE VITICULTURAL LAND REGISTER, WAS ONLY ADOPTED ON 23 NOVEMBER 1962, THAT IS, APPROXIMATELY SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE 30 JUNE 1963, THE DATE OF THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD FIXED BY ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 24, WHILST REGULATION NO 26/64/EEC OF THE COMMISSION ( OJ, SPECIAL EDITION 1963 - 1964, P . 112 ), WHICH SETTLED MANY OF THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE ACTUAL FORM OF THE REGISTER, WAS ONLY ADOPTED ON 28 FEBRUARY 1964, THAT IS, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PERIOD . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCORDING TO THE DEFENDANT, THE INTERPRETATION PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT AMOUNTS TO " MAKING THE ACTUAL EXTENT OF THE PERIOD ( IN QUESTION ) DEPENDENT ON THE RELATIVE DISPATCH WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS . "
9 THE SAID DELAYS IN ADOPTING THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS DO NOT PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR PUTTING FORWARD AN INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION NO 24 DIFFERING FROM THAT WHICH EMERGES FROM ITS WORDING, ITS SENSE AND ITS PURPOSE . MOREOVER, ALTHOUGH SUCH DELAYS DO NOT GIVE GROUNDS FOR THE COMPLAINT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS EXCEEDED THE PERIOD LAID DOWN AND EXTENDED TO 31 DECEMBER 1964, THEY MAY NOT ON THE OTHER HAND BE INVOKED TO EXCUSE THE FACT THAT ON THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE REASONED OPINION IT HAD STILL TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER REGULATION NO 24 .
10 FROM THOSE CONSIDERATIONS AS A WHOLE IT FOLLOWS THAT THE MEMBER STATES WERE BOUND UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REGULATIONS TO SET UP A REGISTER CAPABLE OF FUNCTIONING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY REGULATION NO 24 . NEVERTHELESS, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT PREPARED SUCH A REGISTER BY THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD FIXED BY THE REASONED OPINION . DECREE NO 1707 OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC OF 29 DECEMBER 1965, PUBLISHED IN THE GAZZETTA UFFICIALE OF 23 MAY 1966, DOES NOT FULFIL THE REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATION NO 24 SINCE IT MERELY CREATES THE LEGAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITIONS MAKING POSSIBLE THE SUBSEQUENT ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGISTER AS LAID DOWN IN THAT REGULATION .
11 THE DEFENDANT HAS ADMITTED THAT THE BODY OF IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY THAT DECREE HAS NOT YET BEEN TAKEN . IT MUST THEREFORE BE DECLARED THAT BY ITS FAILURE TO PREPARE THE VITICULTURAL LAND REGISTER THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 24 .

12 UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS AND MUST THEREFORE BEAR THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS .

THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DECLARES THAT, BY NOT PREPARING THE VITICULTURAL LAND REGISTER PROVIDED FOR IN REGULATION NO 24 OF THE COUNCIL, THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THAT PROVISION;
2 . ORDERS THE DEFENDANT TO PAY THE COSTS .