I'RANTL be accepted in so far as such rules, ducers to use a specific shape of bottle applicable to domestic and imported when the use of that shape or a products alike, may be justified on the similar shape of bottle accords with a ground that it is necessary to satisfy fair and traditional practice in the mandatory requirements relating in State of origin constitutes a measure particular to consumer protection and having an effect equivalent to a fair trading. quantitative restriction. 8. Although the legislation of a Member State may, in order to protect an 9. Measures having an effect equivalent indirect designation of geographical to quantitative restrictions on imports origin in the interests of consumers, arising from the fact that national prohibit the marketing of wines legislation permits a specific shape of imported in a certain type of bottle, it wine-bottle to be used only by certain must be observed that, in the system national producers or dealers cannot of the common market, consumer be justified on grounds of public protection and fair trading as regards policy, whether or not the legislation the presentation of wines must be carries penal sanctions; nor can they guaranteed with regard on all sides be justified by the protection of for the fair and traditional practices industrial and commercial property on observed in the various Member the ground that such a bottle is States. traditionally used by national pro­ ducers if identical or similar bottles The application by a Member State to are used in another Member State in imports of wine originating in another accordance with a fair and traditional Member State of national legislation practice for marketing wines allowing only certain national pro­ produced in that State. In Case 16/83 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tenth Criminal Chamber of the Landgericht München [Regional Court, Munich] II for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty in the criminal proceedings brought against KARL PRANTL for contravention of the Weingesetz [Wine Law], 1301 JUDGMENT OF 13. 3. 1984 — CASE 16/83 THE COURT composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, T . Koopmans and Y. Galmot (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco, O . Due and U. Everling, Judges, Advocate General: Sir Gordon Slynn Registrar: P . Heim gives the following JUDGMENT Facts and Issues The facts of the case, the course of the The traditional Italian Bocksbeutel is procedure and observations submitted rounder and has a shorter neck than the under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Franconian Bocksbeutel. Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community may be summarized as follows: 2. The German wine legislation for the protection of the use of the Bocksbeutel bottle I — Facts and procedure Paragraph 17 of the Wein-Verordnung [regulation on wine, liqueur wine and A — The facts wine-based beverages] of 15 July 1971 (Bundesgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 926) was 1. The "Bocksbeutel" bottle adopted after the Bundesgerichtshof The Bocksbeutel bottle at the centre of [Federal Court of Justice] gave a this case has a characteristic bulbous judgment on 12 March 1971 in which it shape. Quality wine psr (produced in a held that a Bocksbeutel bottle was an specified region) from Franconia, Baden- indirect indication of geographical origin Franconia and four municipalities loc­ and its use for wine not produced in the ated in central Baden are marketed in region in which the bottle is traditionally Bocksbeutel bottles which have been used might mislead consumers. used in Franconia for centuries. In Italy, too, especially in the Trentino Paragraph 17 reads as follows: Alto Adige, the Bocksbeutel bottle has a tradition going back more than one "Only quality wine psr from the speci­ hundred years. fic growing area of Franconia, the 1302 PRANTL Taubertal in Baden, the Schüpfergrund 3. The charge against Mr Pianti and the municipalities of Neuweier, Steinbach, Umweg and Varnhalt may be The charge against Mr Prantl is that marketed in Bocksbeutel bottles of the between 3 December 1980 and 10 traditional kind." September 1981 he made improper use of Bocksbeutel bottles by persistently The second subparagraph of Paragraph importing into the Federal Republic of 23 of the Wein-Verordnung provides Germany and selling and holding in that: stock for sale there Italian red wine, namely a quality wine produced ir. a "Pursuant to Paragraph 67 (5), Point 2, specified region and originating from the of the Weingesetz [Wine Law] any Martini cellars in Girlan. person who contrary to Paragraph 17 hereof markets in Bocksbeutel bottles In so acting lie offended against products other than those enumerated in Paragraph 17 of the Wein-Verordnung that provision shall be guilty of an and by virtue of Paragraph 67 (5), offence". Point 2, of the Wcingesetz of 14 July 1971 is liable to a fine or imprisonment. Finally, Paragraph 67 (V) of the Wein- gesetz [Wine Law] (Bundesgesetzblatt B — The proceedings 1977, Part I, p. 893) provides inter alia that: On 6 July 1982 the Amtsgericht [Local Court] Miesbach acquitted Mr Prantl "It shall be an offence punishable by fine after reaching the conclusion that, or imprisonment not exceeding one year although the bottles used by his company were traditional Bocksbcutel bottles (1) ... within the meaning of Paragraph 17 of the Wein-Verordnung, that regulation (2) to put on the market, import, export was not applicable by virtue of Articles or advertise a product in con­ 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty. travention of the prohibition of misrepresentation contained in Para­ The Public Prosecutor appealed to the graph 46 (I) to (III) hereof or in any Landgericht München [Regional Court, regulation adopted under Paragraph Munich] II claiming that Paragraph 17 46 (IV) hereof in so far as such regu­ of the Wein-Verordnung did not have lation refers to this penal provision an effect equivalent to a quantitative for the definition of a specific restriction on imports and was not offence . ..". therefore contrary to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. After the entry into force of Paragraph It was also claimed that Paragraph 17 17 of the Wein-Verordnung protection was necessary in the interests of of the Bocksbeutel bottle seems to have consumer protection and fair trading. been somewhat weakened in the Federal Republic of Germany as a result of The Landgericht München II decided another judgment of the Bundes­ that owing to their shape the gerichtshof of 26 January 1979 in which Bocksbeutel bottles used by Mr Prantl it held that Paragraph 17 had to be looked very much like Franconian construed narrowly and applied only to Bocksbeutel bottles and that they were the original kind of Bocksbeutel bottle traditional Bocksbeutel bottles within the and not to bottles of a "similar" or meaning of Paragraph 17 of the Wein- "related" kind. Verordnung. 1303 JUDGMENT OF 13. 3. 1984 — CASE 16/83 However, it raised the question whether, Pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Rules of if Paragraph 17 of the Wein-Verordnung Procedure and upon application of the was contrary to Article 30 of the EEC Government of the Federal Republic of Treaty, it was still valid by virtue of the Germany for the case to be decided in exception laid down in Article 36 of the plenary session, the Court decided that EEC Treaty. the case should be considered by the full court. By order dated 12 January 1983 the Tenth Criminal Chamber of the Land­ Upon hearing the report of the Judge- gericht München II stayed the pro­ Rapporteur and the views of the ceedings and decided to submit the Advocate General the Court decided to following two questions to the Court for open the oral procedure without any a preliminary ruling: preparatory inquiry. However, the Court decided to ask the Commission and the " 1 . Does Paragraph 17 of the Wein- Government of the Federal Republic of Verordnung of 15 July 1971 [regu­ Germany to reply before the oral lation relating to wine, liqueur wines procedure to the following questions: and wine-based beverages] have an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports prohibited by Article 30 of the EEC Treaty? 1. Questions put to the Commission of the European Communities 2. In the particular circumstances of the present case, can Paragraph 17 of The Commission is asked to submit to the Wein-Verordnung be applied in the Court the results of its investigations order to protect the interests (see page 12 of its written observations) mentioned in Article 36 of the EEC into whether similar measures or customs Treaty?" recognized by national law exist in the other Member States. The order making the reference was registered at the Court on 28 January 1983. The Commission is asked to state briefly the work undertaken and the nego­ tiations conducted so far with a view to In accordance with Article 20 of the ensuring protection of the "Bocksbeutel" Protocol on the Statute of the Court and the reasons for the failure of the of Justice of the European Economic work and negotiations. Community written observations were submitted by Karl Prantl, represented by Stock, Strohm and Reinelt, Rechts­ anwälte, the Government of the Federal 2. Question put to the Government of Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal Republic of Germany Professor Rudolf Lukes, full professor of law, the Government of the Italian Republic, represented by Ivo M. The Government of the Federal Republic Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato, and by of Germany is asked to state the objects the Commission of the European of the German association named on Communities, represented by Richard page 30 of its written observations and Wainwright and Bernhard Jansen, the reasons for which and under which members of its Legal Department, acting legislation that association registered a as Agents.