The case has the General Directorate for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention (DGCCRF) as the complainant. Its Bureau of Investigation of Wines and Spirits considers that 7,000 bottles of Martell cognac from a limited series “Single Estate Collection” (translate collection of cognacs from the same estate) should not be vintage.
According to the DGCCRF, there is no evidence that the two nectars were produced in 1978 and 1989!
Two references are in question. The first bears the mention Petite Champagne 1978; the second, Grande Champagne 1989. These cognacs were distilled and matured by “long-standing” partner winegrowers of the trader, the Couillaud and Mongillon families. The collection, launched in 2018 and 2019, celebrated the Charente terroir and its people. It was marketed abroad, mainly in Asia and in airport shops. The two incriminated vintages were sold for 314 and 145 euros.
“Too many uncertainties”
One of the offending bottles. “These cognacs may be vintages, maybe not. Nothing really confirms it. We do not have the necessary traceability,” says the DGCCRF.
MMPJ
However, and here is the whole problem raised during a control operation by the DGCCRF, nothing proves that the two nectars (whose taste and quality are not called into question) were indeed produced in 1978 and 1989! “These cognacs may be vintages, maybe not. Nothing really confirms it. We do not have the necessary traceability”, underlined Jean-Philippe Daugas for the civil part. The inspector in the Fraud Department pointed to “too many uncertainties, too many inconsistencies” in the handwritten notebooks of the winegrowers and the documents presented by Martell. Carbon 14 analyzes were carried out at the request of the trader. They do not give a precise date.
The hearing on Tuesday lasted more than three hours. She was eminently technical. We talked about the art ofouch and of remburer barrels; mastery of the alcoholic strength by volume (TAV) and the mysteries of part of the angels.
In this flood of sometimes abstruse arguments, a dazzling exchange clarified the debates. President Filhouse, referring to the fame and prestige of Martell: “Can we afford to be on the approximation when producing vintages? “Reply of the lawyer Voiron, pointing to the absence of evidence on the side of the accusation: “Can we afford to be in the approximate when we prosecute? »
A fine required
For the prosecutor Élise Bozzolo, no doubt, the offense is constituted. A house of Martell’s standing “should have demonstrated greater rigor, greater demands”. According to her, a company whose profits exceed 150 million euros “should have spent a little money in verifying its commercial allegations”. Considering that the merchant made a comfortable margin and earned around 900,000 euros with the 7,000 vintage bottles, it demanded a fine of 500,000 euros and requested the publication (at Martell’s expense) of the penalty in a national newspaper and a specialist journal.
The merchant’s lawyers refuted the accusations of deceptive commercial practices, arguing that “the traceability elements of its products have been collected and verified with the greatest care”. They challenged the DGCCRF’s assertion that the alcohol content of eaux-de-vie, as they age, could only decrease. According to them, “the mention of the years of the vintages marketed is in accordance with the legal and regulatory requirements”.
Deliberate in September, probably on the 27th.
–
