The legal dispute concerns the use of the indications "Weingut" (vineyard estate) and "Gutsabfüllung" (estate-bottled). It is disputed whether the pressing of grapes in a winepress installation rented by the eponymous wine-growing holding for 24 hours fulfils the requirement under EU law whereby "winemaking is entirely carried out on that holding".

The claimant is the proprietor of a wine-growing holding in the Mosel wine-growing region. She produces wine not only from the grapes of the vineyards that she owns, but also from leased vineyards. She leased vineyards from a wine-growing holding, which is located approximately 70 km away, and concluded an exploitation agreement with the lessor, on the basis of which the vineyard is worked in accordance with her instructions. In addition, the claimant rented the winepress installation of the exploiting holding for a period of 24 hours each year, starting with the harvesting of the leased area. During that time, the winepress house is available exclusively for the processing of the grapes from the leased vineyards.

According to the defendant's opinion, the claimant is not allowed to use the designations "Weingut" and "Gutsabfüllung" for the wine pressed in the facilities of the exploiting holding. Therefore, the winemaking had to take place in an own vineyard estate that is delimitable in a spatial and organisational manner. This presupposed the independence of the operating facilities and the deployment of own personnel. The renting of the winepress installation for a merely short period of time did not meet these requirements.

Following the action for declaration brought by the claimant, the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) decided that the claimant is entitled to use the indications and may not be prohibited from doing so by the defendant.

Following the appeal on points of fact and law brought by the defendant, the Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) amended the judgment and dismissed the action. In order to fulfil the requirements under EU law and federal law for the use of the indications "Weingut" and "Gutsabfüllung", the winemaking had to be carried out on a holding, that did not only represent an organisational unit, but also showed - above and beyond - a uniform body of the holding with operating facilities that are permanently attributable to the holder of the vineyard estate and in which personnel belonging to the holding was deployed that is subject to his or her right to give instructions. The pressing did not fulfil these requirements. Moreover, the rental agreement concluded with the exploiting holding did not safeguard that all the stages of wine production have been carried out under the management and responsibility of the same natural or legal person. In light of the autonomous decision-making powers of the exploiting holding independent from the claimant, the rental agreement did not safeguard the continuous management and responsibility of the claimant's vineyard estate.

As reasoning for her appeal on points of law, the claimant stated that the decisive factor was that the wine production took place under the actual management and exclusive responsibility of a single holder; such a holder was responsible for the quality of the product. By contrast, the place where the winemaking physically took place was irrelevant. Therefore, the renting of a winepress installation and the carrying out of the pressing on the basis of the instructions of the proprietor of the vineyard estate also met the requirements under EU law.

The Senate has suspended the proceedings and obtained a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, hereinafter Court of Justice) on the interpretation of article 54 (1) second subparagraph of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33. The Court of Justice decided on the request by judgment of 23 November 2023.

On 31 January 2024, the claimant stated that there were no remaining stocks of the wine in dispute. Thus, the legal dispute was terminated. The defendant objected to the declaration to terminate the proceedings and invoked a legitimate interest in a decision on the merits. He continues to defend the appeal judgment.

The claimant's appeal on points of law did not meet with success.

9 The claimant's appeal on points of law, seeking a declaratory judgment that the dispute was terminated in the main proceedings, is admissible (1.), but unfounded (2.).

10 1. Following a unilateral declaration to terminate the proceedings, the request pursued by the action may be amended, also in the appeal proceedings on points of law, to seek the declaration that the dispute has been terminated in the main proceedings. Section 142 (1) first sentence of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO, Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung) does not preclude this interpretation (section 173 first sentence VwGO in conjunction with section 264 no. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO, Zivilprozessordnung); Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG, Bundesverwaltungsgericht), judgment of 10 December 2020 ‌- 8 C 26.20 - Rulings of the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwGE, Entscheidungen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts) 171, 36 para. 16 with further references).

11 2. The application for a declaratory judgment is unfounded. The declaration that the dispute has been terminated in the main proceedings must be made if (a) the dispute has actually been terminated and (b) either the defendant has no legitimate interest in a decision on the merits or, (c) prior to the occurrence of the event terminating the proceedings, the judgment of the Higher Administrative Court in response to the claimant's appeal on points of law should have been set aside and the defendant's appeal on points of fact and law against the judgment of the Administrative Court upholding the claimant's action should have been dismissed, that is to say, the action would have been successful. The latter requirement has not been met in this case.

12 a) In terms of fact, the dispute has been terminated since the claimant no longer has any stocks of the wine in question. That was the case no later than at the time of her notification of 31 January 2024, as she clarified at the oral hearing.

13 b) The defendant may claim a legitimate interest in a judicial decision on the merits. Such an interest is to be determined following the criteria of the legitimate interest in a prompt declaration in accordance with section 113 (1) fourth sentence VwGO. Accordingly, the defendant's interest in a decision on the merits is worthy of protection if the judicial decision contributes to avoiding or simplifying future legal disputes between the parties, for example, because the question in dispute may arise again at any time in the course of the defendant's administrative practice in relation to the claimant (see BVerwG, judgment of 10 December 2020 - 8 C 26.20 - BVerwGE 171, 36 para. 19 with further references). This is the case here. The defendant stated without objection that the claimant had concluded winepress installation rental agreements of this kind with ten other vineyard estates. The legal question in dispute may arise again at any time for these other wines of the claimant. To this extent, the legal situation has not changed in a way that is relevant for the decision (see article 54 and Annex VI of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in the current version of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1606 of 30 May 2023 (OJ L 198 p. 6); article 3 (3) of 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 in the current version of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 (OJ L 1143 p. 1) in conjunction with article 3 no. 2 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 (OJ L 435 p. 1); section 38 of the Wine Ordinance (WeinV, Weinverordnung) in the version promulgated on 21 April 2009 (Federal Law Gazette (BGBl., Bundesgesetzblatt) I, p. 827) most recently amended by the Second Ordinance Amending the Wine Ordinance and the Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance (Zweite Verordnung zur Änderung der Weinverordnung und der Alkoholhaltige Getränke-Verordnung) of 11 October 2021 (BGBl. I 2021, p. 4683)).

14 c) Until the occurrence of the event responsible for terminating the proceedings, it was not possible to set aside the judgment of the Higher Administrative Court in response to the claimant's appeal on points of law and to dismiss the defendant's appeal on points of fact and law against the judgment in the first instance. The assumption of the Higher Administrative Court that the requirements for the use of the terms "Weingut" and "Gutsabfüllung" were not met with regard to the claimant's wine in question is, in effect, incontestable under the law that is subject to an appeal on points of law. Accordingly, it rightly dismissed the - undisputedly admissible - declaratory action as unfounded.

15 Pursuant to article 122 (1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (most recently amended, at the time of occurrence of the event responsible for terminating the proceedings, by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 (OJ L 435 p. 262) in conjunction with article 54 (1) second subparagraph of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33, the terms listed in Annex VI of the Delegated Regulation - thus, in Germany, including the indication "Weingut" - 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. There are no further requirements on the use of the term "Weingut" under national law (article 54 (2) first sentence of Delegated Regulation 2019/33 in conjunction with section 38 (1) WeinV (at the time of the occurrence of the event responsible for termination, most recently amended by the by the Second Ordinance Amending the Wine Ordinance and the Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance of 11 October 2021, BGBl. I 2021, p. 4683)). In accordance with section 38 (3) and (5) in conjunction with (4) first sentence no. 1 WeinV, these requirements also apply to the use of the term "Gutsabfüllung" (BVerwG, decision of 10 March 2022 - 3 C 5.21 - (...) para. 13). 

16 (aa) The pressing of the grapes used to make the wine in dispute at the press rented for a period of 24 hours from the exploiting holding H. by the claimant, which - as the Court of Appeal determined with binding effect for the Senate (section 137 (2) VwGO) - was exclusively at the disposal of the claimant during this period, does not preclude that the winemaking within the meaning of article 54 (1) second subparagraph of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 must be regarded as having been entirely carried out in the claimant's wine-growing holding (Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, hereinafter Court of Justice), judgment of 23 November 2023 - C-354/22 - (...) para. 53 et seq.). In so far as the Higher Administrative Court assumed otherwise on the basis of the requirements of a "uniform body of the holding", "permanent spatial operating facility" or "permanent spatial […] attribution of all the stages of winemaking" (printed judgment p. 12 et seqq.) the appeal judgment breaches federal law (section 137 (1) no. 1 VwGO in conjunction with article 288 (2) second sentence of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)).

17 The winemaking is entirely carried out within the meaning of article 54 (1) second subparagraph of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 in the eponymous holding if the pressing is carried out by personnel of the holding which rents out the winepress installation provided that the proprietor of the eponymous holding takes over the actual management, close and continuous supervision and responsibility for this process (CJEU, judgment of 23 November 2023 - C-354/22 - (...) para. 58 et seq., 62). The Higher Administrative Court's assumption that the pressing process must be carried out by the the eponymous wine-growing holding's own personnel (printed judgment p. 13 et seq.), is therefore also not compatible with federal law.

18 (bb) The judgment is not based on the cited breaches of federal law, however, since the requirements for the deployment of external personnel were not met.

19 In order for the requirement to be met that the pressing is carried out under the actual management, close and continuous supervision and exclusive responsibility of the eponymous wine-growing holding, the pressing must be carried out in accordance with that holding's own requirements, without it being able to merely rely on any instructions given by the wine-growing holding which rents out the winepress installation; in the event that unexpected problems arise which require immediate decisions to be taken, those decision must be taken by the proprietor of the eponymous wine-growing holding or by members of its personnel (CJEU, judgment of 23 November 2023 ‌- C-354/22 - (...) para. 55 et seqq., 60).

20 According to the factual findings of the Higher Administrative Court, which are binding on the Senate (section 137 (2) VwGO), it was not guaranteed, in the event that unexpected problems arose during the pressing that would have required immediate decisions to be taken, that those decisions would be taken by the claimant itself or members of her personnel. The Higher Administrative Court established that, according to rental agreement of the winepress installation, the lessor was able and under an obligation to take autonomous decisions in the event of unforeseen problems arising during the pressing process, independently from the claimant (printed judgment p. 19). The claimant has not raised a procedural complaint against this, however.

21 According to the findings, the claimant was not entitled to use the indication "Weingut" for the disputed wine.

22 (cc) No other conclusion can be drawn with regard to the use of the indication "Gutsabfüllung" (section 38 (3) and (5) in conjunction with (4) no. 1 WeinV).