# C_2007082EN.01001401.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Confcooperativa Friuli Venezia Giulia, Luigi Soini, Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinat Mario e figlio v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Case C-23/07)

(2007/C 82/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confcooperativa Friuli Venezia Giulia, Luigi Soini, Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinat Mario e Figlio

Applicants:

Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

Defendants:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union (OJEC L 236 of 23 September 2003) to be interpreted as meaning, with regard to the names of wines produced in Hungary and in the European Community, that, with effect from 1 May 2004, only the provisions of Community legislation referred to in Regulation No 1493/99 (1) and Regulation No 753/2002 (2), as amended by Regulation No 1429/2004 (3), are applicable? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union (OJEC L 236 of 23 September 2003) to be interpreted as meaning, with regard to the names of wines produced in Hungary and in the European Community, that, with effect from 1 May 2004, only the provisions of Community legislation referred to in Regulation No 1493/99 (1) and Regulation No 753/2002 (2), as amended by Regulation No 1429/2004 (3), are applicable?

1

2

3

| 2. | Does Article 52 of Regulation No 1493/99 constitute an adequate legal basis on which the European Commission may abolish the use of the name of a wine (in the present case, ‘Tocai friulano’) which derives from a vine variety that is lawfully entered in the appropriate registers of the Italian State and is referred to in relevant Community regulations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 52 of Regulation No 1493/99 constitute an adequate legal basis on which the European Commission may abolish the use of the name of a wine (in the present case, ‘Tocai friulano’) which derives from a vine variety that is lawfully entered in the appropriate registers of the Italian State and is referred to in relevant Community regulations?

| 3. | Does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and consumers of agricultural products within the European Community, prohibit discrimination against producers and users of just one wine name, namely that relating to the wine ‘Tocai friulano’, among the 122 names listed in Annex I to Regulation No 753/2002 (as amended by Regulation No 1429/2002), in so far as it prohibits the continued use of that name after 31 March 2007? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and consumers of agricultural products within the European Community, prohibit discrimination against producers and users of just one wine name, namely that relating to the wine ‘Tocai friulano’, among the 122 names listed in Annex I to Regulation No 753/2002 (as amended by Regulation No 1429/2002), in so far as it prohibits the continued use of that name after 31 March 2007?

| 4. | Is Article 19(2) of Commission Regulation No 753/2002, which provides authority for the use of the names of the vine varieties listed in Annex I to that regulation (as amended by Regulation No 1429/2004), to be interpreted as meaning that it is possible and lawfully permissible for there to be cases of homonymy among the names of vine varieties and geographical indications which refer to wines produced within the European Community? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 19(2) of Commission Regulation No 753/2002, which provides authority for the use of the names of the vine varieties listed in Annex I to that regulation (as amended by Regulation No 1429/2004), to be interpreted as meaning that it is possible and lawfully permissible for there to be cases of homonymy among the names of vine varieties and geographical indications which refer to wines produced within the European Community?

| 5. | If the answer to the fourth question is in the affirmative, does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and consumers of agricultural products within the European Community, preclude the Commission from applying in one of its own regulations (753/2002) the criterion of homonymy in a manner deriving from the application of Annex I to that regulation, to the effect, that is to say, of recognising the legality of the use of many names of vine varieties which include names that are wholly or partly homonymous with an equal number of geographical indications, whilst refusing to accept as lawful the use of just one name of vine variety (‘Tocai friulano’), which has been lawfully used for centuries in the European market? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to the fourth question is in the affirmative, does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and consumers of agricultural products within the European Community, preclude the Commission from applying in one of its own regulations (753/2002) the criterion of homonymy in a manner deriving from the application of Annex I to that regulation, to the effect, that is to say, of recognising the legality of the use of many names of vine varieties which include names that are wholly or partly homonymous with an equal number of geographical indications, whilst refusing to accept as lawful the use of just one name of vine variety (‘Tocai friulano’), which has been lawfully used for centuries in the European market?

| 6. | Is Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to be interpreted as meaning that, in implementing the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement, and in particular the provision in Article 24(6) thereof, concerning homonymous names of wines, it is not possible for the Council of Ministers or the Member States (still less the European Commission) to adopt or approve measures such as Commission Regulation No 753/2002, which, with regard to homonymous names, afford different treatment to wine names having the same characteristics from the point of view of homonymity? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to be interpreted as meaning that, in implementing the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement, and in particular the provision in Article 24(6) thereof, concerning homonymous names of wines, it is not possible for the Council of Ministers or the Member States (still less the European Commission) to adopt or approve measures such as Commission Regulation No 753/2002, which, with regard to homonymous names, afford different treatment to wine names having the same characteristics from the point of view of homonymity?

| 7. | Is the effect of the express reference to Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement in recital 56 in the preamble to and Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to make the provision in Article 24(6), which establishes the right of the States that are parties to that agreement to protect homonymous names, directly applicable within the Community legal order, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Is the effect of the express reference to Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement in recital 56 in the preamble to and Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to make the provision in Article 24(6), which establishes the right of the States that are parties to that agreement to protect homonymous names, directly applicable within the Community legal order, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11.

3

---