BAKGRUNN (fra kommisjonsforordningen)

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/9342 lays down rules supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 concerning wine-growing areas where the alcoholic strength may be increased, authorised oenological practices and restrictions applicable to the production and conservation of grapevine products, the minimum percentage of alcohol for by-products and their disposal, and publication of the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) files. 

(2) Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 sets out the list of authorised oenological practices and restrictions applicable to the production and conservation of grapevine products falling within the scope of Part II of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, as referred to in Article 80(1) of that Regulation. Table 1 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 lays down the authorised oenological processes and the conditions and limits of their use. Table 2 of that Part lays down the authorised oenological compounds and the conditions and limits of their use. Tables 1 and 2 should be amended to take account of technical progress, in particular in relation to resolutions adopted by the OIV in 2022 and 2023. In addition, some of the information provided in Tables 1 and 2 should be further clarified. 

(3) Line item 2 of Table 1 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 lays down the conditions of use of heat treatments. It has been pointed out that the term ‘heat treatments’ in column 1 of that line item lacks clarity as it can cover several different treatments. To improve clarity, it is appropriate to insert a footnote under Table 1 to list the broad categories of heat treatments referred to in the OIV files mentioned in column 2 of line item 2. The same issue was raised in relation to cold treatments referred to in column 1 of line item 2a in that Table 1. In a similar way to heat treatments, it is appropriate to insert a footnote under Table 1 to specify the broad categories of cold treatments covered by the OIV files referred to in column 2 of line item 2a. 

(4) Resolution OIV-OENO 708-2022 amended the prescriptions of OIV file 2.1.14 concerning flotation by deleting the reference to carbon dioxide and adding the reference to argon. Column 2 of line item 8 of Table 1 and column 3 of line items 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 should therefore be amended accordingly. 

(5) The implementation of certain oenological practices listed in Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 is to be supervised by an oenologist or a qualified or specialised technician due to their important role in ensuring operator safety, and food safety and quality. This concerns the practices referred to in Table 1, line items 6, 10, 12 to 18, and 20, and in Table 2, line items 6.5, 6.6, 6.9 and 6.12. For certain of those practices, supervision is provided for explicitly in that Delegated Regulation through the relevant Appendices to Annex I, Part A. For other practices, supervision is required through the relevant files of the OIV Code of Oenological Practices and therefore do not appear explicitly in that Delegated Regulation. However, it would be appropriate to make this requirement more transparent. Line items 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 of Table 1, and line item 6.12 of Table 2, should therefore be amended accordingly. 

(6) In 2014, through Resolution OIV-OENO 504-2014, the OIV allowed the treatment of wines by a membrane technology coupled with activated carbon to reduce excess 4- ethylphenol and 4-ethylguaiacol. That treatment is regulated in line item 18 of Table 1 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 and in Appendix 10 to that Annex. In 2023, Resolution OIV-OENO 657-2023 broadened the scope of that treatment by permitting the use of adsorbent styrene-divinylbenzene beads in addition to activated carbon and by covering all volatile phenols. Such modifications would help the Union wine producers further correct organoleptic defects of their wine. It is therefore appropriate to introduce them into the Union legislation on oenological practices. Line item 18 of Table 1 of Part A of Annex I to that Delegated Regulation should therefore be amended accordingly. In addition, Appendix 10 to that Part should be deleted as its scope has become more limited than the amended line item 18 of Table 1. However, the requirement for membranes to comply with Union and national legislation laid down in that Appendix should be maintained and transferred to column 2 of line item 18 of Table 1. 

(7) Article 9(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 provides that the purity and identification specifications of substances used in oenological practices are those set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. Where not laid down in that Regulation, the specifications of the International Oenological Codex of the OIV, as referred to in column 4 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934, apply. Column 4 of Table 2 currently mentions the relevant files of the OIV Codex for all substances listed in that Table, including those covered by Regulation (EU) No 231/2012, thus possibly creating confusion. Therefore, to improve clarity, it is appropriate to delete the file of the OIV Codex from column 4 of Table 2 for the substances whose specifications are to comply with those laid down in Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. This concerns line items 1.1 to 1.6, 1.10, 2.1 to 2.7, 4.1, 4.3, 5.10, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.11, 6.13, 8.1 to 8.4 and 11.3. 

(8) In accordance with column 7 of line item 2.6 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934, ascorbic acid may be used at a maximum dose of 250 mg/l for each treatment and its maximum content in wine thus treated and placed on the market is to be 250 mg/l. That maximum dose corresponds to the maximum dose recommended in the OIV files 1.11, 2.2.7 and 3.4.7 referred to in column 3 of that line item 2.6. However, the maximum content in ascorbic acid mentioned in column 7 of that line item is different from that recommend in OIV file 3.4.7, which is 300 mg/l. Given that ascorbic acid can be present naturally in wine or be the result of chemical reactions, a treatment therewith at a dose of 250 mg/l can lead to the presence of up to 300 mg/l in the wine placed on the market. It is therefore appropriate to provide for a maximum content of ascorbic acid in wine of 300 mg/l, as prescribed by the OIV. The conditions of use specified in column 7 of line item 2.6 of Table 2 should therefore be deleted, so that the prescriptions of the OIV files 1.11, 2.2.7 and 3.4.7 apply. 

(9) Resolution OIV-OENO 684A-2022 amended the prescriptions of OIV file 3.4.20 concerning the use of selective plant fibres in wine. Resolution OIV-OENO 684B2022 extended their use to must. Line item 3.2 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 should therefore be amended accordingly. 

(10) Column 7 of line item 4.1 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 provides that the specifications of microcrystalline cellulose are to comply with those laid down in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. These conditions of use are redundant in connection with Article 9(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934. It is therefore appropriate to delete them. 

(11) Diammonium hydrogen phosphate bears the number INS 342 in the International Numbering System for Food Additives. It does not have a corresponding E number in the EU legislation since it was never authorised as food additive under Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The number E 342 was included by error in column 2 of line item 4.2 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934. It is therefore appropriate to delete it. 

(12) Resolution OIV-OENO 633-2019 added the so-called food-grade cellulose to the list of fermentation activators mentioned in OIV file 2.3.2. By establishing specifications for powdered cellulose (E 460(ii)), Resolution OIV-OENO 681-2022 clarified that powdered cellulose and food-grade cellulose are one and the same substance. Given this clarification, it is appropriate to add this substance to the Section on activators for alcoholic and malolactic fermentation in Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934. 

(13) Resolutions OIV-OENO 675A-2022, OIV-OENO 675B-2022, OIV-OENO 675C2022 and OIV-OENO 675D-2022 adopted specific monographs for sub-classes of oenological tannins, namely procyanidins/prodelphinidins, ellagitannins, gallotannins and profisetinidins/prorobitenidins respectively. As these monographs are relevant for the tannins referred to in line items 5.12 and 6.4 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934, it is appropriate to include them in column 4 of those line items. However, Section 1 of those monographs is currently being revised in the OIV. Pending the conclusion of that revision, it is appropriate to make only Section 2 of those monographs applicable in the Union. Column 7 of line items 5.12 and 6.4 of Table 2 should therefore be amended accordingly. 

(14) Resolution OIV-OENO 689-2022 amended the prescriptions of OIV file 3.3.6 concerning treatment with gum arabic. Line item 6.8 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 should be amended accordingly. 

(15) The conditions and limits of use referred to in column 7 of line items 7.2 to 7.12 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 are broader than the prescriptions of the respective OIV files indicated in column 3 of those line items. However, it is not justified, from a technical point of view, to allow for conditions of use of enzymes broader in the Union than at the OIV. The specific conditions of use mentioned in column 7 of line items 7.2 to 7.12 should therefore be deleted so that the OIV prescriptions apply. 

(16) Line item 7.5 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 provides that the specifications to be applied to hemicellulase are those referred to in file COEI-1-ACTGHE of the OIV International Oenological Codex. However, resolution OIV-OENO 682-2021 removed monograph COEI-1-ACTGHE from the OIV Codex. Its reference in column 4 of line item 7.5 of Table 2 should therefore be deleted. The only enzyme with a hemicellulase activity currently authorised at the OIV is xylanase. It is therefore appropriate to adapt line item 7.5 of Table 2 by introducing therein the correct references to xylanase, namely its name, EC number and relevant file of the OIV International Oenological Codex. At the same time, it is appropriate to clarify in column 1 of Table 2 that xylanase is a hemicellulase in order to make the link with the files of the OIV Code of Oenological Practices which only refer to the general term ‘hemicellulase’. 

(17) Specifications of betaglucanase identified by the number EC 3.2.1.58 are set out in the files COEI-1-BGLUCA, COEI-1-PRENZY and COEI-1-ACTGLU of the OIV International Oenological Codex. The file COEI-1-ACTGLU is missing, and should therefore be added, in column 4 of line item 7.7 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934. In addition, the OIV Code of Oenological Practices allows betaglucanase to be used on both musts and wines for clarification, filtration and solubilisation of yeast compounds. However, column 3 of line item 7.7 of Table 2 only refers to the OIV file 3.2.10 which solely aims to improve the solubilisation of yeast compounds in wine. In order to align the Union legislation on the OIV recommendations for betaglucanase, it is appropriate to add the OIV files 2.1.4, 2.1.18, 3.2.8, 3.2.11 and 3.5.7 in column 3 of line item 7.7. Column 8 of that line item should also be amended accordingly. 

(18) In May 2022, the OIV introduced editorial modifications to file COEI-1-ACTGLU of its International Oenological Codex. In particular, it deleted the reference to glycosidase (EC 3.2.1.20) which is a specific glycosidase not used in wine-making. Therefore, line item 7.8 should be deleted from Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934. 

(19) The OIV Code of Oenological Practices allows beta-glucanase (β1-3, β1-6) to be used on both musts and wines for clarification, filtration and solubilisation of yeast compounds. However, column 3 of line item 7.10 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 only refers to the OIV file 3.5.7 which solely aims to improve the clarification and filterability of wine. In order to align the Union legislation on the OIV recommendations for beta-glucanase (β1-3, β1-6), it is appropriate to add the OIV files 2.1.4, 2.1.18, 3.2.8, 3.2.10 and 3.2.11 in column 3 of line item 7.10. Column 8 of that line item should also be amended accordingly. 

(20) Line item 11.3 of Table 2 of Part A of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 authorises the use of the additives E 150a, E 150b, E 150c and E 150d in the production of liqueur wines. Those additives are identified by the common name ‘caramel’ in column 1 of that line item. However, Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 provides each version of E 150 with an individual designation. E 150a is designated as plain caramel, E 150b as caustic sulphite caramel, E 150c as ammonia caramel and E 150d as sulphite ammonia caramel. In order to align Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, it is appropriate to establish four separate line items for the additives E 150a, E 150b, E 150c and E 150d and to designate them as in Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. 

(21) The second indent of point (c) of point 2 of Section A of Part B of Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 lists a number of white wines from France entitled to a protected designation of origin for which the maximum sulphur dioxide content may be raised to 300 mg/l. Wines from the protected denomination of origin ‘Corrèze’ entitled to bear the traditional term ‘Vin de paille’ have a high content in residual sugars, which requires the use of sulphur dioxide up to 300 mg/l to ensure their preservation. That indent should therefore be amended accordingly. 

(22) In accordance with point 3(a) of Part II of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117 of the European Parliament and of the Council, liqueur wines of prolonged ageing may exceptionally have an actual alcoholic strength of not less than 14 % by volume instead of not less than 15 % volume. In accordance with that provision, the Commission is empowered to establish the list of liqueur wines benefiting from that derogation. Spain has requested the addition of several Spanish liqueur wines to that list. The Commission has assessed that request and concluded that it is therefore appropriate to insert a new point in Section B of Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 and to add a new Section in Appendix 1 to that Annex to address that request. 

(23) To be placed on the market, liqueur wines are to have, among others, a total alcoholic strength of not less than 17,5 % volume, unless they benefit from the derogation referred to in Part II, point (3)(b), of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, and in Section B, point 5(b), of Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 and in Section B of Appendix 2 to that Annex III. Such derogation is currently possible only where national laws applicable thereto before 1 January 1985 expressly so provided. However, production methods of liqueur wines have evolved over time and new protected designations of origin that could potentially benefit from that derogation have been registered since 1985. Consequently, that temporal restriction no longer appears justified. It is therefore appropriate to delete the reference to 1 January 1985 in the relevant provisions of Annex III to that Delegated Regulation. 

(24) Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2024/217 and (EU) 2023/2887 approved modifications to the traditional terms ‘vino generoso’ and ‘vino generoso de licor’ respectively. Points 8 and 10 of Section B of Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 have thus become obsolete and should therefore be deleted. In addition, point 9 of Section B of that Annex repeats the same provisions as in the summary of definition/condition of use of the traditional term ‘vinho generoso’ in the Union register of traditional terms ‘e-Ambrosia’. To avoid duplicating such provisions, it is appropriate to delete that point.

(25) Part II, point (3), of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 empowers the Commission to draw up lists of liqueur wines with a designation of origin or with a geographical indication which may benefit from the derogations provided for in that point. However, the Commission is not empowered to further describe the products benefiting from those derogations. That information should instead be part of the specifications of the designations of origin or geographical indications. On that basis, Spain has modified the specifications of relevant designations of origin to clarify which products may benefit from the derogations referred to in Section A of Appendix 1 to Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934, in points 4, 5 and 6 of Section B of that Appendix and in Section B of Appendix 2 to Annex III to that Delegated Regulation. Consequently, the right column of the tables under ‘SPAIN’ in those Appendices has become obsolete and should be deleted. Furthermore, the tables themselves no longer serve any purpose. They should be replaced by lists of wines with protected designations of origin. 

(26) Spain has informed the Commission that producers of wines bearing the ‘Lebrija’ protected designation of origin have requested the possibility to produce their wines using the derogation provided for in Part II, point (3)(f)(ii), of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, and in Section B, point 2, of Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 and in Section B, point 1, of Appendix 1 to that Annex III. The Commission has assessed that request and concluded that it was appropriate to add the name ‘Lebrija’ to the list of protected designations of origins from Spain in point 1 of Section B of that Appendix. 

(27) In addition, due to the process of production, ‘Lebrija’ liqueur wines have a very low reducing sugar content and can hardly reach the minimum 17,5 % volume of total alcoholic strength required for liqueur wines. To be put on the market, such wines would need to benefit from the derogation referred to in Part II, point (3)(b), of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, and in Section B, point 5(b), of Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 and in Section B of Appendix 2 to that Annex III. It is therefore appropriate to add the name ‘Lebrija’ under ‘SPAIN’ in Section B of Appendix 2 to Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934. 

(28) The specification of the protected designation of origin ‘Porto – Port’ provides that the liqueur wine described as ‘branco leve seco’ may benefit from the derogation provided for in Part II, point (3)(b), of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, and in Section B, point 5(b) of Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 and in Section B of Appendix 2 to that Annex III. Mentioning ‘branco leve seco’ in the table under ‘PORTUGAL’ in that Section is therefore a repetition of the same provision in the product specification. To avoid such repetition, it is appropriate to delete that table and replace it by the name of the protected designation of origin ‘Porto – Port’. 

(29) Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 should therefore be amended accordingly,