Olivier Cousin before the Tribunal (part 3)

Eric Morain (Olivier Cousin's lawyer) and Olivier Cousin 

awaiting the start of the hearing

This is the third and last post on the proceedings before the Tribunal in Angers yesterday. See Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

It was interesting to see that cameras and TV equipment are allowed into French courts before proceedings start. This is very different from in England where you are not allowed to take cameras into the court building let alone the court. In the photo above you can see a sound boom in the top left corner. No photos can be taken once the judges arrive.

Christophe Valissant, the Procureur (State Prosecutor): 

Following on from Alain Fouquet, the lawyer representing the INAO and the Fédération Viticole de Anjou-Saumur, the Procurer, Christophe Valissant. He spoke about the production criteria set out for the ACs and that those for vin de table were less strict. Valissant said that Cousin had tricked the public by using the name of Anjou without signing up to the appellation criteria. The name Anjou was protected and reserved for appellation wines whether or not it included the words – d'origine contrôlée. Cousin had abused the AC and had profited by exporting his wines using the reputation of Anjou without being bound by the appellation's criteria. 

Valissant demanded that Cousin be fined 5000€ for the various labelling offences. In addition he should pay between 10 and 20 centimes on each mislabelled bottle – totalling around 3000 bottles. Furthermore the future judgment should be published in two newspapers plus a specialist wine magazine – he suggested La Revue du Vin de France.

Eric Morain:

The last person to address the court was Eric Morain, Cousin's Parisian lawyer. The pointed out that Olivier Cousin had changed his labels since 2011 without the pressure of a court case. The Cousin family had been making wine in Martigné-Briand (Anjou) before the Fédération Viticole was founded in 1918. Cousin was following a tradition rather than setting up a business as the procurer had suggested. 

The Anjou has been confiscated – stolen by appellation contrôlée. When buying wine the consumer looks for the assurance of 'd'origine controlée' and not Anjou. Cousin had not tricked the consumer.

Since 2005 there had been 38 changes to wine labelling laws – they change constantly. 

Morain turned to the claimed prestige of 'Anjou'. He revealed that Cousin's best year in terms of turnover – 250,000€ – was in 2012 when there was no mention of Anjou on the label.

Being biodynamic meant that Cousin took lots of risks.

To cap the bottle produced by Fouquet to show the cork with Anjou Olivier Cousin printed on it, Morain produced a magnum and demonstrated how difficult it was to pull off the capsule, so that you could see the cork. In any case there were no rules about what you put on corks. 

Morain revealed to laughter that Olivier called his wife his Petite Anjou. It was also untrue that Cousin had refused to talk to the Fédération. 

The president of the judges then announced that judgment would be given on Wednesday 4th June.    

     

 

     

 

Olivier Cousin before the Tribunal (part 2)

Eric Morain (Olivier Cousin's lawyer) and Olivier 

conferring before the start of the hearing

(Part 1 of Olivier Cousin before the court is here.)

Alain Guillot

With Olivier Cousin's testimony finished Alain Guillot, an organic producer from Burgundy, took the stand as a character witness for Cousin and to speak on his behalf. He said it was always sad to see a producer like Olivier Cousin up before the court. Guillot appreciated Olivier's wine that was natural and had total traceability. The real trafficking in wine involved large volumes.

Guillot raised the paradox of foodstuffs now carrying detailed nutritional information as a result of the mad cow disease crisis, while vin de France was allowed to carry minimal information. There was a need and demand for full traceability. Guillot said that the appellation system had stolen 'the terroir' by appropriating place names. 

Alain Fouquet, avocat representing the INAO and La Fédération Viticole de l'Anjou et de Saumur

It was Alain Fouquet who had requested on 2nd October 2013 that the trial be postponed. He started by showing a the results of a poll of visitors to Anjou: 67% gave wine and vineyards as their primary motive for visiting Anjou.

Fouquet explaining that the Fédération was founded in 1918 and the importance of producers working together. He spoke about the criteria of excellence and the right of the consumer to know from where a wine comes. Cousin was a little fraudster but it was not the intention of the Fédération or the INAO to crush him. Cousin had used Anjou on his labels without respecting the cahiers des charges (production criteria) and profiting from Anjou's reputation without paying his subscription to the Fédération.

He said that the Fédération had tried to use a proces verbal to settle this dispute but had had no response from M. Cousin, so had been obliged to come to the Tribunal.

Fouquet made considerable play on Cousin's exports to the USA and 'China'. The mention of China brought guffaws from many of Olivier's supporters sitting and standing in the public area at the back of the court as Cousin doesn't export to China but Japan. Fouquet appeared to be denigrating Chinese wine consumers by suggesting they knew nothing about wine. 

He produced a bottle of Cousin's Pur Breton, quickly removing the capsule to show that the corks said Anjou Olivier Cousin – another example of Cousin continuing to try to fool the consumer and to break the rules.

Fouquet also mention Noma, voted the best restaurant in the world which lists Olivier's wines. He brought up the recent case of food poisoning there. Again Fouquet got his geography wrong by saying that it was in the USA. Eric Morain, Olivier's lawyer corrected him, to loud laughter from the back of the court, informing Fouquet that Noma is in Denmark. For a lawyer defending the importance of 'd'origine', geography did not appear on yesterday's evidence to be Fouguet's strongest suit.

Part 3 to follow – prosecution and Eric Morain's response.

     

Olivier Cousin: before the Angers court today – decision 4th June (part 1)

 Olivier Cousin sitting in court awaiting the start of the hearing

Last minute preparations for Eric Morain, Olivier Cousin's lawyer

Olivier Cousin spent more than two and a half hours this afternoon in front of the Angers Tribunal Correctionnel. The prosecutor asked for a fine of 5000€ plus between 0.10 - 0.20 centimes per bottle labelled Anjou Olivier Cousin. The judgment will be handed down on Wednesday 4th June. 

Trying to follow a court case in a foreign language is I suspect never easy. Unfortunately it was made even more difficult this afternoon because no-one used a microphone because those in court didn't work properly and the president of the judges was very sofly spoken, especially in the initial stages.

Proceedings started by the judge asking Olivier Cousin a number of questions – initially factual – his age, how many hecatres did he have, his turnover, number of employees, etc. 75% of sales came from export, especially to the USA and Japan. Then on to why he had used the name Anjou. Cousin explained that he had left the appellation system in 2005 because these wines were increasingly 'industrial'. He said he was frequently controlled both by the Repression des Fraudes but also for his biodynamic viticulture. He doesn't chaptalise nor add sulphur and is keen to use sustainable methods of viticulture. 

Cousin spoke of two different viticultures – one making industrial wine, while on the other had you have the vigneron artisan – paysan making wine that was 'saine' (healthy) with no additives. He said that it was possible to find AC Anjou wines in supermarkets at less than two euros making them cheaper than bottled water. 

He was asked what he thought the most imporant things were for peope to know about a wine – the grape variety, where it came from and the vintage was Cousin's response. He also spoke of Anjou as a region – an historic region. In response to a question Cousin said that he had not trademarked the term 'Pur Breton'.  

   

(To be continued in part 2)

Olivier Cousin with Eric Morain 

Olivier Cousin leaving the court buidlng:

Ready to go down the court steps

heading down the steps from the court building

Olivier Cousin saluting his supporters