Winemakers in a tiny Swiss village are fighting for their livelihood against the mighty producers of a better-known bubbly French wine who believe that they alone should be allowed to use the noble name.
In this battle of the vines, Champagne’s 669 villagers have told the European Court of Justice that wine has been produced on the slopes above Lake Neuchtel since the Romans discovered the joys of mountain air. It is a mere 310 years, they argue, since Dom Pérignon decided to make a virtue of troublesome bubbles. It is an ambitious challenge against the most sacred of appellations.
The legal challenge, on which Luxembourg is expected to rule next year, has inspired a groundswell of Swiss solidarity and this year pushed the price of a bottle of the flat, local wine to 8 Swiss francs.
Campaigner and former mayor of Champagne Albert Banderet said the two wines had nothing in common – from the grape used to make them to the annual scale of output. ‘Ours is flat, red or white, and practically only sold in Switzerland. There is no way our annual production of 280 000 bottles can be a threat to the 290 000 million annual output of the French.’
His ‘action committee for the defence of the identity and interests of Champagne commune’ raised about R420 000 to launch the legal action two years ago when an EU treaty with Switzerland came into force. French negotiators had insisted that the ban on the word ‘champagne’ be included in the treaty covering the movement of people and goods.
The EU treaty gave the 43 growers of Swiss champagne a couple of extra years to use their village’s name on their bottles, but that expired in June this year, said Banderet. ‘We clubbed together with each wine grower contributing 5 centimes (25c) for each of his square metres of vine. Everyone in this village and in the canton of Vaud is on our side, not to mention the rest of Switzerland.’
Banderet said jobs probably would not be lost if Champagne lost its case. ‘But we will lose income. We will have to relaunch our wine and estimate that the loss of our appellation will cost us 1.1 million Swiss francs [about R4 800 000] in lost income each year.’
But Jean-Luc Barbier, director-general of the French Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne, says that, given that there are dozens of French villages called Champagne and none is allowed to use the name on wine, he does not see why the rule should be different across the border.
‘Our success is the result of our stringent production rules, but also of our considerable renown, our exceptional notoriety and the incomparable prestige of the appellation d’origine contrôlée known as champagne.’
He said the champagne houses had spent millions, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, positioning their product on world markets. As a result, the first court ruling to protect the methods developed in northern France dated back to 1843.
‘We have always remained vigilant. Even the use of the words méthode champenoise has been banned in France and the EU since 1994.’ He added that his association had brought successful legal actions against a range of products all over the world, including ‘Champagne Cigarettes’, ‘champagne-flavoured’ yoghurt and even a ‘Bain de Champagne’ bubble-bath.
In the face of their powerful opponent, the Swiss wine-makers’ chances of success are limited, but their Brussels lawyer, Denis Waelbroeck, says he has the determination to win the case.
‘It is a ridiculous and far-reaching clause. These people have been deprived of their own name.’ – Guardian Unlimited Â