A certificate from the authorities of a third country on the compliance of a batch of wine with EU oenological practices does not, on its own, constitute proof of compliance with those practices for its marketing in the Union, according to a judgment of the EU Court of Justice published on Thursday 28 April.
If, despite the issue of such a certificate, these practices have not been complied with, the burden of proof of the trader’s fault cannot be shifted to the Member States’ authorities, according to the judgment (C-86/20).
In January 2016, the Czech authorities fined the Czech company Vinařství U Kapličky €80,000 for releasing in the country batches of wine imported from Moldova that did not comply with EU oenological practices. Vinařství U Kapličky brought an action, arguing that it should have been exonerated from liability for the infringement in question, since the Moldovan authorities had certified that the batches of wine concerned complied with those practices.
The Court finds that the certificate drawn up by the Moldovan authorities is intended to be given to the authorities of the Member State of importation when the customs formalities for importing the consignment concerned into the EU are completed. However, EU oenological practices must be observed not only for the import of the batch, but also for its marketing in the EU.
However, while the above-mentioned certificate is also relevant for the purposes of marketing the batch concerned, it does not constitute proof of compliance with those practices for those purposes, according to the Court.
On the one hand, the EU legislator has not given this certificate such an effect and, on the other hand, the non-compliance of a batch of wine with EU oenological practices may result from circumstances subsequent to the issue of the certificate, which could arise in particular during the transport of the batch.
Link to the judgment (in French): https://aeur.eu/f/1em (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)