Considering that the law already makes it possible to sanction “abusively low” prices of wines purchased from producers, Maître Louis Lacamp believes that the sector is deluding itself by thinking that new regulations will immediately change the valuation of its prices. For the Parisian lawyer, legal action will be necessary in all cases to move the lines. A subject he knows well for being the lawyer of Rémi Lacombe, the Médoc winemaker who attacked and convicted two merchants in first instance (Cordier and Ginestet, the appeal is in progress).
P
For you, the demands of the sector to revise Egalim in order to impose a remunerative price on wines are not justified, as the judgment last February in Bordeaux would already allow the concept of excessively low prices to be applied to them…
Louis Lacamp: It is true that the law could be more precise on certain points, but this is the case for many texts. In France, it is often up to the courts to specify the conditions for applying laws. In any case, it is certain that abusively low prices are already prohibited. However, listening to some farmers, we have the impression that no text exists!
For you, the current regulations are sufficient to ensure a remunerative price?
As demonstrated by the Bordeaux Commercial Court at first instance, the text is perfectly capable of being implemented. The legislator's desire was clear: not to ensure that a farmer can sell all his production, but to guarantee, when a sale takes place, that it is profitable. At present, only one action has been taken (that of my client Rémi Lacombe), and a sentence has been handed down, for a substantial amount at that – although an appeal is in progress. This is a very encouraging sign but as long as farmers do not act massively, practices will not fundamentally change – the first instance decision had many repercussions in itself…which should have encouraged other farmers to act to move the lines.
In the sector, we hear the argument that the editorial of Egalim on the notion of “imposing an excessively low price” lacks precision, both on the way of “imposing” and on the definition of “excessively low price down”.
As mentioned, it is certain that the wording of the text could have been more precise, but this is often the case – and the will of the legislator was, however, very clear. Whatever text is adopted, objections will always be raised in defense. What is essential to understand is that no law can ever force traders in advance to buy at a better price. The law can only provide for a judicial sanction, a posteriori, if the price was too low…which supposes that farmers take legal action. It is up to them to dare to assert their rights.
Some farmers hope that traders will spontaneously offer better prices. It's a sweet dream. The reality is that the situation will continue as long as farmers do not act judicially. Obviously, this approach is not easy: those who take action will expose themselves to the risk of reprisals, as was the case for my client and as the Competition Authority had anticipated in its opinion on this text . But the more collective these actions are, the more the risks will be limited.
Would the creation of inter-professional indicators to calculate a price below which wine would not be profitable seem relevant to you?
Such indicators would be relevant because they could give a clue to the courts. But they do not seem to me to be the only criterion: the costs specific to the producer must also be taken into account. In addition, it will be recalled that the Egalim law provided for the establishment of indicators in 2018, but eight years later no indicator has been published in wine. This is a failure of the inter-profession which raises questions about the proper representation of farmers within it, because obviously the absence of indicators only benefits traders.
Meetings had also taken place between traders, farmers and brokers, during which all affirmed that it was necessary to put an end to prices that were too low. However, in its latest appeal conclusions, the Cordier company requests a departure from the Egalim law on the grounds that it would be contrary to European law (which, according to it, would prohibit setting a minimum purchase price). This illustrates that behind declarations of intent, certain trading companies remain opposed to a real change in practices.
What do you think about the establishment of producer organizations to be able to talk about prices?
Generally, the more actors are brought together, the better they negotiate. This is therefore a good food for thought.
Related News :