JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)
23 November 2023 (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Labelling and presentation in the wine sector – Designations of origin and geographical indications – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 – Second subparagraph of Article 54(1) – Indication of the holding carrying out the winemaking – Vineyards and winepress facility under lease from another wine-growing holding – Winemaking entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding)
In Case C‑354/22,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany), made by decision of 10 March 2022, received at the Court on 1 June 2022, in the proceedings
Weingut A
v
Land Rheinland-Pfalz,
THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of E. Regan, President of the Chamber, Z. Csehi, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), I. Jarukaitis and D. Gratsias, Judges,
Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,
Registrar: I. Illéssy, Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 3 May 2023,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– Weingut A, by H. Eichele, Rechtsanwalt,
– the Land Rheinland-Pfalz, by S. Reuter, Fachreferent, and E. Wagner, Regierungsrätin,
– the European Commission, by B. Hofstötter and B. Rechena, acting as Agents,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 July 2023,
gives the following
Judgment
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, restrictions of use, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of protection, and labelling and presentation (OJ 2019 L 9, p. 2), as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1375 of 11 June 2021 (OJ 2021 L 297, p. 16) (‘Delegated Regulation 2019/33’).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between Weingut A and the Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Federal State of Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany) (‘the Land’) concerning the use of the terms ‘Weingut’ (wine-growing estate) and ‘Gutsabfüllung’ (bottled at the estate) in the presentation of wines which are made from grapes, coming from leased vineyards, the pressing of which has been carried out at a facility under lease from another vineyard.
Legal context
European Union law
Regulation No 1308/2013
3 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 262) (‘Regulation No 1308/2013’) comprises Article 3, entitled ‘Definitions’, paragraph 3 of which is worded as follows:
‘The definitions set out in [Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608)] … apply for the purposes of this Regulation, save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.’
4 Article 122 of Regulation No 1308/2013, headed ‘Delegated powers’ provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:
‘In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the wine sector, the [European] Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning rules and restrictions on:
(a) the presentation and use of labelling particulars other than those provided for in this Section;
…
(c) optional particulars concerning:
…
(iii) terms referring to a holding and the conditions for their use;
…’
Regulation No 1307/2013
5 Article 4 of Regulation No 1307/2013, entitled ‘Definitions and related provisions’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:
‘For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
…
(b) “holding” means all the units used for agricultural activities and managed by a farmer situated within the territory of the same Member State;
…’
Delegated Regulation 2019/33
6 Recitals 34 and 48 of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 state:
‘(34) Articles 117 to 121 of [Regulation No 1308/2013] lay down the general rules for the labelling and presentation of grapevine products. That Regulation also harmonises the use of terms other than those expressly specified by Union legislation, provided that they are not misleading. For the smooth functioning of the internal market, Union rules on the use of compulsory labelling particulars for grapevine products should be laid down. Moreover, in order not to mislead consumers, provisions on the use of optional labelling particulars should also be set out.
…
(48) The indication of the holding which exploits the vineyards from which the grapevine products come and where all the winemaking processes are carried out, may constitute an added value for producers and a higher quality indication for consumers. It should therefore be permissible for producers to indicate the name of a holding on the labels of grapevine products bearing a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication.’
7 According to Article 1 of that delegated regulation, entitled ‘Subject matter’:
‘This Regulation lays down rules supplementing [Regulation No 1308/2013] concerning protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional terms, in addition to labelling and presentation in the wine sector as regards:
…
(f) labelling and presentation.’
8 The provisions of Chapter IV of that delegated regulation govern the labelling and presentation of grapevine products; Sections 1 and 2 thereof list the compulsory particulars (Articles 40 to 48) and the optional particulars (Articles 49 to 55), respectively.
9 Article 54 of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, entitled ‘Indication of the holding’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:
‘The terms referring to a holding listed in Annex VI, other than the indication of the name of the bottler, producer or vendor, shall be reserved for grapevine products with protected designations of origin or geographical indications.
Those terms shall only be used if the grapevine product is made exclusively from grapes harvested in vineyards exploited by that holding and the winemaking is entirely carried out on that holding.’
10 Annex VI to Delegated Regulation 2019/33 contains a list of the terms referred to in Article 54(1) of that regulation, for each Member State. As regards the Federal Republic of Germany, that annex lists the following terms: ‘Burg, Domäne, Kloster, Schloss, Stift, Weinbau, Weingärtner, Weingut, Winzer’.
German law
11 Paragraph 38 of the Weinverordnung (Wine Regulation) of 21 April 2009 (BGBl. I, p. 827), provides:
‘(1) An indication of the holding is accepted for the wines “[Federweißer, Landwein (country wines), Qualitätswein (quality wines), Prädikatswein (premium wines), Sekt b.A. (sparkling wines), Qualitätsperlwein b.A. (quality sparkling wines) or Qualitätslikörwein b.A. (quality liqueur wines)]” only in accordance with Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto.
…
(4) The concept of “produced and bottled” can be used only:
1. by a wine-growing holding on which the grapes used for that wine were harvested and vinified;
…
3. by a holding situated in the specified region indicated or in its immediate vicinity, to which the wine-growing holdings which have harvested the grapes used are connected as members of a group of wine-growing holdings, and which made wine from those grapes;
(5) Where the conditions laid down in point 1 of the first sentence of subparagraph 4 are satisfied, the words “bottled at the estate” may be used only if:
1. the wine-growing undertaking keeps tax accounts,
2. the person responsible for winemaking can provide evidence of full oenological training, and
3. the vineyards on which the grapes used for the production of the wine in question have been harvested are exploited by the wine-growing undertaking concerned at least since 1 January of the year of harvest.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
12 Weingut A, the applicant in the main proceedings, is the owner of a wine-growing holding located in Zell (Germany), in the Moselle region. It produces wine from grapes coming not only from its own vineyards but also from other vineyards which it leases.
13 One of those leased vineyards, which covers an area of 2.15 hectares, is located approximately 70 kilometres (km) from Zell on a wine-growing holding belonging to wine-grower B.
14 The two wine-growers have concluded a contract under which wine-grower B cultivates the vines leased by the applicant in the main proceedings in accordance with its instructions and, in addition, leases out a winepress facility to the applicant in the main proceedings each year, on an exclusive basis, for a period of 24 hours as of harvesting. During that period, the winepress facility is available exclusively for the processing of grapes from the leased vineyards.
15 Under that lease, pressing is carried out on the holding of wine-grower B in accordance with the oenological practices of the applicant in the main proceedings. The wine thus obtained is poured into vats which are transported to the holding of the applicant in the main proceedings by the staff it employs.
16 The Land took the view that, in those circumstances, the applicant in the main proceedings could not use the indications ‘Weingut’ and ‘Gutsabfüllung’ for wine made on the premises of the holding of wine-grower B, given the lack of autonomy of the permanent establishment and the fact that the applicant in the main proceedings did not employ its own staff for the purposes of the pressing operation.
17 The applicant in the main proceedings brought an action before the Verwaltungsgericht Trier (Administrative Court, Trier, Germany) seeking a declaration that it was entitled to use those two indications. By judgment of 16 May 2019, that court upheld the action, primarily on the ground that responsibility for the actual management, continuous supervision and exclusive responsibility for winemaking lay with the applicant in the main proceedings.
18 The Land brought an appeal against that judgment before the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Higher Administrative Court, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany), which, in its judgment of 12 August 2020, reversed the judgment at first instance and dismissed the action of the applicant in the main proceedings.
19 The appeal court took the view, in particular, that under Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, the indications ‘Weingut’ and ‘Gutsabfüllung’ may be used only if the grapevine product is obtained exclusively from grapes coming from the vineyards of the holding which gives its name to the wine designation (‘the eponymous wine-growing holding’) and if the winemaking is entirely carried out on that latter holding. Winemaking must take place on a holding which constitutes a single operational unit with a permanent establishment which is permanently used by the owner of the eponymous wine-growing holding and on which staff work under its management. A separation of the stages of winemaking, such as the pressing stage, is at odds with the main idea that ‘everything should remain in the same hands’.
20 According to that court, the conditions of the lease at issue do not guarantee that all the stages of wine production take place under the management and responsibility of the same natural or legal person, since pressing may take place both in the presence of the applicant in the main proceedings and of the wine-grower which rents out the winepress facility and takes on responsibility for the operation.
21 The applicant in the main proceedings brought an appeal on a point of law (Revision) before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany), which is the referring court.
22 That court has doubts as to whether winemaking may be regarded as having been ‘entirely’ carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, where that holding arranges for the grapes to be pressed at a pressing facility under lease from another vineyard for a period of 24 hours.
23 It observes, first of all, that Delegated Regulation 2019/33 does not include a definition of the concept of ‘holding’, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of that delegated regulation.
24 So far as concerns agricultural land, the Court has already stated, in its judgments of 14 October 2010, Landkreis Bad Dürkheim (C‑61/09, EU:C:2010:606), and of 2 July 2015, Wree (C‑422/13, EU:C:2015:438), that the decisive criterion for establishing whether a production unit under lease may be regarded as being attached to the farmer and managed by him or her is, in particular, whether that farmer has sufficient independence in carrying out his or her activity.
25 According to the referring court, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, it must be assumed that those criteria also apply in a situation such as that at issue in the case before it. In the regulatory framework applicable to wine, those criteria should be interpreted strictly.
26 In the first place, the requirement for a close link between permanent establishments and the eponymous wine-growing holding is supported by the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33. The latter presupposes that not only the winemaking takes place on the holder’s holding but, moreover, that wine production is ‘entirely’ carried out on that holding. That reflects the requirement of a particularly close link between the permanent establishment and the eponymous wine-growing holding.
27 In the second place, the history of the legislation at issue make it possible to confirm such a strict interpretation. According to the referring court, the evolution of EU legislation on the presentation and use of labelling particulars for wine sector products in force since 2009 has led to a restriction by reason of which winemaking must be ‘entirely’ carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding.
28 In the third place, the spirit and purpose of the legislation at issue is to protect the identification of holdings that exploit the vineyards themselves and carry out winemaking from start to finish, with a view to meeting an expectation of superior wine quality on the part of consumers.
29 However, it is not certain, on the basis of criteria derived from the judgments of 18 October 1988, Erzeugergemeinschaft Goldenes Rheinhessen (311/87, EU:C:1988:483), and of 29 June 1994, Baux (C‑403/92, EU:C:1994:269), whether a pressing facility which is under lease for a period of 24 hours can be linked to the activity of the eponymous wine-growing holding. Assuming that the leasing of vineyards located at a considerable distance from the eponymous wine-growing holding’s principal place of business has no bearing on indication, it would appear logical that the leasing of a winepress to press the grapes in situ and avoid transporting the grapes will have no bearing either. The joint use of operating facilities is common in wine production and is commercially sensible.
30 However, in so far as the pressing facility under lease for 24 hours by the eponymous wine-growing holding may be linked to that holding, the staffing requirements to be met by the pressing operation must be specified. In that regard, the question arises, in particular, whether the presence of the applicant in the main proceedings or its staff is compulsory during pressing.
31 According to the referring court, the requirements arising from the case-law of the Court, which refer to actual management and continuous supervision, support an argument in favour of the compulsory presence of the staff of the applicant in the main proceedings and against the adequacy of a mere right to give instructions. As regards bottling, the Court held, in the judgment of 18 October 1988, Erzeugergemeinschaft Goldenes Rheinhessen (311/87, EU:C:1988:483), that it necessarily had to be carried out by the producer himself or herself. Accordingly, recourse to the services of another wine-growing holding should be avoided in view of the requirement that the winemaking be entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding itself.
32 If the pressing may also be carried out by staff of the wine-growing holding which rents out the pressing facility, the question also arises whether that staff may be authorised to intervene of its own motion in the pressing should unexpected problems arise. In such emergencies, the decisions that the staff of the lessor wine-growing holding will have to take autonomously, without first referring them to the eponymous wine-growing holding, will result in that holding no longer assuming in those circumstances the actual management and continuous supervision of the pressing operation.
33 Lastly, even if taking on responsibility by way of instruction is, in principle, sufficient, the question remains whether the position must be otherwise where the wine-growing holding which rents out the pressing facility and performs the pressing has an interest of its own in the manner in which that operation is carried out. In the present case, the contract concluded between the applicant in the main proceedings and wine-grower B provides for a price supplement linked to the yield and quality of the wine produced, which could result in that latter wine-grower having an interest of its own in the method of carrying out the pressing and to an economic risk of its own.
34 In those circumstances, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1) Can winemaking have been entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation [2019/33] if the pressing takes place in a winepress [facility] which has been rented from another wine-growing holding for 24 hours and is exclusively at the disposal of the eponymous wine-growing holding during that period?
(2) If that question is answered in the affirmative, is it necessary that the pressing be carried out or at least supervised on-site by [staff] of the eponymous wine-growing holding, or can the pressing also be carried out by [staff] of the wine-growing holding renting out the winepress [facility] in accordance with the instructions of the eponymous wine-growing holding?
(3) If the pressing can also be carried out by [staff] of the wine-growing holding renting out the winepress [facility], can [that staff] be given the authorisation to intervene in the pressing on the basis of an individual decision in the event of unexpected problems?
(4) Is attribution of the winemaking to the eponymous wine-growing holding precluded if the wine-growing holding which rents out the winepress [facility] and carries out the winepressing has an interest of its own in the manner in which the winepressing is carried out, because a yield- and quality-dependent supplement per hectolitre of Kabinett/Spätlese/Auslese wine on top of the area-based exploitation fee is agreed in the vineyard exploitation agreement which has also been concluded with that holding?’
Consideration of the questions referred
The first question
35 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the pressing of grapes from leased vineyards takes place in a facility which is exclusively at the disposal of the eponymous wine-growing holding for a short period under a lease with another wine-growing holding precludes winemaking from being regarded as having been entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding, for the purposes of that provision.
36 In that regard, it should be borne in mind at the outset that, under Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, the terms referring to a holding listed in Annex VI thereto, other than the indication of the name of the bottler, producer or vendor, are reserved for grapevine products with protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications and are to be used only if the grapevine product is made exclusively from grapes harvested in vineyards exploited by that holding and if the winemaking is entirely carried out on that holding.
37 While it follows that the first subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 reserves the terms at issue for grapevine products covered by a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, in the present case, that requirement does not give rise to questions on the part of the referring court. The answer to the first question must therefore be based on the assumption that the vineyards under lease in the present case, situated approximately 70 km from the principal place of business of the eponymous wine-growing holding, are covered by the same protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication as that establishment, which it is for the referring court to determine.
38 The same is true of the condition that the terms at issue may be used only if the grapevine product is made exclusively from grapes harvested in vineyards exploited by that holding since the referring court has pointed out that, in the present case, the vineyards under lease are exploited in accordance with the requirements of the applicant in the main proceedings and has not asked any questions in that regard.
39 Accordingly, the questions raised by the referring court relate to the conditions under which it may be considered that the winemaking is entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding and, in particular, so far as concerns the first question, whether the fact that the grape pressing facility is rented by that holding for a period of only 24 hours precludes the pressing operation and, consequently, the winemaking itself from being regarded as having been entirely carried out on that holding.
40 It should be noted that the concept of ‘holding’, which appears in Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, is not defined in that regulation or, indirectly, by reference to the national laws of the Member States. Accordingly, that concept must be regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law, which must be interpreted in a uniform manner throughout the territory of the European Union, taking into consideration not only the wording of that provision, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 May 2023, Bezirkshauptmannschaft Lilienfeld, C‑155/22, EU:C:2023:394, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).
41 In the first place, so far as concerns the rest of the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, that provision requires, for the purposes of using the terms referred to therein, inter alia, that the winemaking be ‘entirely’ carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding.
42 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that that provision identifies several stages of production, including the harvesting of grapes and winemaking, which includes the pressing of grapes. As the Commission submits in its written observations, in so far as a permanent establishment is covered by the concept of ‘holding’, the term ‘entirely’ simply clarifies that during the winemaking process no processing step must be carried out outside that holding, without, however, the use of that term restricting the definition of holding laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1307/2013.
43 In the second place, as regards the context of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, that regulation was adopted by the Commission under the power conferred on it by Articles 122 and 227 of Regulation No 1308/2013. In accordance with Article 122(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 1308/2013, delegated acts may, inter alia, concern the rules on optional particulars for ‘terms referring to a holding and the conditions for their use’.
44 While Regulation No 1308/2013 does not define the concept of ‘holding’ either, it refers in Article 3(3) thereof, to the definitions contained, inter alia, in Regulation No 1307/2013. Accordingly, account must be taken of the definition in Article 4(1)(b) of that regulation, according to which ‘holding’ means ‘all the units used for agricultural activities and managed by a farmer situated within the territory of the same Member State’.
45 As regards the geographical area in which the different production units must be located in order to be regarded as forming part of the holding, the Court has held that a producer is free to choose the place of production where it is situated within the territory of a Member State. He or she must, however, manage all the production units, without the need for the farmer to own the facilities which he or she uses for his or her production (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 May 2003, Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben, C‑268/01, EU:C:2003:263, paragraphs 30 and 33 and the case-law cited).
46 As regards the requirement that a production unit must be managed by the farmer him or herself, the Court has already ruled that the concept of ‘management’ does not imply that the farmer has unlimited power over the area in question when using it for agricultural purposes. However, the farmer must enjoy a degree of autonomy with regard to that area sufficient for him or her to carry out his or her agricultural activity (judgment of 7 April 2022, Avio Lucos, C‑176/20, EU:C:2022:274, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited).
47 As the Advocate General observed in point 51 of his Opinion, it emerges, by analogy, from the considerations set out in paragraphs 44 to 46 of the present judgment that the concept of ‘holding’, within the meaning of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, is not restricted solely to land owned by the wine-grower or situated near it, but may extend to vineyards under lease and, where appropriate, situated at a place other than that where that wine-grower owns its own vineyards, without prejudice to the other conditions laid down in that provision, in particular those referred to in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the present judgment.
48 In the third place, such an interpretation is also supported by the objective pursued by the provisions of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 which govern the use of optional labelling particulars.
49 In that regard, the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 must be read in the light of recital 48 thereof, according to which the indication, on the label of a grapevine product, of the holding which exploits the vineyard from which the grapevine products come and where all the winemaking processes are carried out pursues the objective of providing information to consumers as to the guarantee of superior quality which stems from that indication. That objective can be achieved only if it is ensured that those consumers are not misled as to the identity of the holding responsible for the winemaking process. Moreover, such a conclusion follows from recital 34 of that regulation, which states that it is necessary to set out provisions on the use of optional labelling particulars so as not to mislead consumers.
50 In the same vein, the Court has already held that optional particulars, such as the indication of the holding, are intended to guarantee to consumers who buy wine bearing certain names that the main stages involved in the process of winemaking, namely those between harvesting and wine production, have been carried out under the actual management, close and continuous supervision and exclusive responsibility of a wine-grower with whom the quality of the product can be associated (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 June 1994, Baux, C‑403/92, EU:C:1994:269, paragraph 15).
51 Similarly, as regards, in particular, the use of the term ‘bottled by the producer’, which indicates that the producer and the person or undertaking carrying out the bottling are one and the same, the Court has stated that it is necessary for the latter operation to have been performed by the producer himself or herself, either at his or her own vineyard or, where the producer does not have bottling equipment, under conditions providing substantially identical guarantees. Such guarantees are present, in particular, when winemaking is carried out under the actual management and strict, continuous supervision of the producer and at his or her sole responsibility. Those requirements serve to achieve the objective of ensuring that the consumer is protected and properly informed (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 October 1988, Erzeugergemeinschaft Goldenes Rheinhessen, 311/87, EU:C:1988:483, paragraphs 14 to 16).
52 It should also be noted, as the Advocate General observes in substance in point 65 of his Opinion, that once it is accepted that, for the purposes of using the terms referred to in Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, it is not necessary for the tasks of cultivating and harvesting grapes, essential to the final result, to be carried out on land belonging to the wine-grower or on land situated near that wine-grower’s land, the same reasoning applies to the pressing of the grapes. By contrast, as is the case for those tasks, it is important to ensure that the owner of that holding also assumes actual management, close and continuous supervision and responsibility for the operation.
53 It follows that the pressing of grapes may be regarded as carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding, where it takes place at a press under lease from another holding for a period of only 24 hours, provided that that press is exclusively at the disposal of the owner of that first holding for the period necessary to complete the pressing operation, which it is ultimately for the referring court to ascertain.
54 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the pressing of grapes from leased vineyards takes place in a facility leased by the eponymous wine-growing holding for a short period from another wine-growing holding does not preclude the winemaking from being regarded as having been entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding, for the purposes of that provision, so long as that facility is exclusively at the disposal of the eponymous wine-growing holding for the period necessary for the pressing operation and that holding assumes actual management, close and continuous supervision and responsibility for that operation.
The second to fourth questions
55 By its second to fourth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in substance, whether the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for winemaking to be regarded as having been entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding, for the purposes of that provision, grapes must be pressed by the staff itself of that holding or whether it may be carried out by staff of the wine-growing holding which rents out the pressing facility, that latter staff being authorised to intervene in the event of unexpected problems arising during pressing. The referring court is also uncertain as to the effect of the fact that the wine-growing holding which rents out the pressing facility has an interest of its own in the manner in which the pressing is performed, in particular by reason of a contractual clause concerning a price supplement linked to yield and quality per hectolitre of wine.
56 It should be pointed out, first of all, that the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 does not lay down any requirement so far as concerns the link between the eponymous wine-growing holding and the staff performing the grape pressing.
57 It should be noted that the objective pursued by that provision, as is apparent from paragraphs 49 to 51 of the present judgment, which consists in providing consumers with information as to the guarantee of superior quality resulting from the indication in question, can be achieved only if those consumers are not misled as to the identity of the persons responsible for the winemaking process.
58 Consequently, whereas such considerations do not preclude the very fact of entrusting certain winemaking activities to staff of the wine-growing holding which rents out the pressing facility, the fact remains that those activities must be carried out under the actual management, close and continuous supervision and exclusive responsibility of the eponymous wine-growing holding (see, by analogy, judgment of 18 October 1988, Erzeugergemeinschaft Goldenes Rheinhessen, 311/87, EU:C:1988:483, paragraph 15).
59 In order for that requirement to be met, it is necessary, so far as concerns the grape pressing operation, for the eponymous wine-growing holding to oversee and supervise in a close and continuous manner that that operation is carried out in accordance with its own requirements, without it being able to merely – for that purpose – rely on any instructions given by the wine-growing holding which rents out the pressing facility.
60 Next, that means that, in the event that unexpected problems arise during that operation which require immediate decisions to be taken, those decisions must be taken by the owner of the eponymous wine-growing holding itself or by members of its staff. In such emergencies, the necessary decisions cannot be delegated to third parties, since such delegation would not make it possible to provide a guarantee of quality arising from the fact that the winemaking is entirely carried out at the eponymous wine-growing holding and, consequently, under the actual management of that holding.
61 Lastly, it should be added that any interest of its own which the holding which rents out the pressing facility to the eponymous wine-growing holding may have, such as a price supplement linked to yield and quality per hectolitre of wine, has no bearing on the question whether winemaking is entirely carried out on that holding, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, in so far as such an interest is not liable to compromise the guarantee that the winemaking is carried out under the actual management, close and continuous supervision and exclusive responsibility of that eponymous wine-growing holding.
62 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second to fourth questions is that the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 must be interpreted as meaning that winemaking is entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding, for the purposes of that provision, even if the pressing operation was performed by staff of the wine-growing holding which rented out the pressing facility to the eponymous wine-growing holding, provided that the owner of the latter holding assumes actual management, close and continuous supervision and responsibility for that operation. The fact that the wine-growing holding which rented out the winepress facility has an interest of its own in the manner in which the pressing is performed, in particular by reason of a contractual clause relating to a price supplement linked to yield and quality per hectolitre of wine, has no bearing on whether winemaking may be regarded as having been carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding.
Costs
63 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:
1. The second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, restrictions of use, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of protection, labelling and presentation, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1375 of 11 June 2021,
must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the pressing of grapes from leased vineyards takes place in a facility leased by the eponymous wine-growing holding for a short period from another wine-growing holding does not preclude the winemaking from being regarded as having been entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding, for the purposes of that provision, so long as that facility is exclusively at the disposal of the eponymous wine-growing holding for the period necessary for the pressing operation and that holding assumes actual management, close and continuous supervision and responsibility for that operation.
2. The second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Delegated Regulation 2019/33, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2021/1375,
must be interpreted as meaning that winemaking is entirely carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding, for the purposes of that provision, even if the pressing operation was performed by staff of the wine-growing holding which rented out the pressing facility to the eponymous wine-growing holding, provided that the owner of the latter holding assumes actual management, close and continuous supervision and responsibility for that operation. The fact that the wine-growing holding which rented out the winepress facility has an interest of its own in the manner in which the pressing is performed, in particular by reason of a contractual clause relating to a price supplement linked to yield and quality per hectolitre of wine, has no bearing on whether winemaking may be regarded as having been carried out on the eponymous wine-growing holding.
[Signatures]