# C_2022037EN.01004401.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/44

---

Action brought on 16 November 2021 — Asociación de Elaboradores de Cava de Requena v Commission

(Case T-732/21)

(2022/C 37/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación de Elaboradores de Cava de Requena (Requena, Spain) (represented by: G. Guillem Carrau, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the publication of the communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for ‘Cava’, PDO-ES-A0735-AM10, (1) published in accordance with Article 17(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018. (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the publication of the communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for ‘Cava’, PDO-ES-A0735-AM10, (1) published in accordance with Article 17(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018. (2)

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with an essential procedural requirement in the examination of the file on the amendment which is the subject of the present action, since the Commission was aware that the amendment was the subject of an action pending before the courts of the Kingdom of Spain and did not suspend the procedure, contrary to the case-law in force in relation to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with an essential procedural requirement in the examination of the file on the amendment which is the subject of the present action, since the Commission was aware that the amendment was the subject of an action pending before the courts of the Kingdom of Spain and did not suspend the procedure, contrary to the case-law in force in relation to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the rules governing the application of the Treaties, on the following grounds: the amendment was treated as a standard amendment, even though it should be identified as a ‘Union’ amendment under Article 14(1)(c) and (d) and related provisions (inter alia, Articles 15, 17 and 55) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 and Article 6 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/34; (3) the publication at issue infringes the general principle of truthfulness, as regards optional labelling, arising from the requirement that the smaller geographical unit must be in the municipality of Requena, and the right of the consumer to be able to identify the origin of the product (Article 120 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 55(1) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018); the publication at issue infringes the rights acquired by the winemakers through almost 40 years of continuous use of the name CAVA DE REQUENA and the legal rules protecting those rights (Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Spain No 1893/1989 and enforcement decisions of 1991), and infringes Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018, Article 40 of which, by reference to Article 119 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, makes it compulsory to indicate the provenance on the label, since it is not sufficient merely to indicate a postal code, contrary to what the Commission has alleged; the publication at issue infringes the principle of equal treatment vis-à-vis other producers of CAVA which have a smaller geographical unit and are able to indicate the geographical origin of the product to the consumer; the publication at issue infringes the Court’s case-law on market access developed in the context of the free movement of goods (Article 34 et seq. TFEU) and allows the cumulative effect of demand in the CAVA market, which infringes Article 101 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the rules governing the application of the Treaties, on the following grounds: the amendment was treated as a standard amendment, even though it should be identified as a ‘Union’ amendment under Article 14(1)(c) and (d) and related provisions (inter alia, Articles 15, 17 and 55) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 and Article 6 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/34; (3) the publication at issue infringes the general principle of truthfulness, as regards optional labelling, arising from the requirement that the smaller geographical unit must be in the municipality of Requena, and the right of the consumer to be able to identify the origin of the product (Article 120 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 55(1) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018); the publication at issue infringes the rights acquired by the winemakers through almost 40 years of continuous use of the name CAVA DE REQUENA and the legal rules protecting those rights (Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Spain No 1893/1989 and enforcement decisions of 1991), and infringes Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018, Article 40 of which, by reference to Article 119 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, makes it compulsory to indicate the provenance on the label, since it is not sufficient merely to indicate a postal code, contrary to what the Commission has alleged; the publication at issue infringes the principle of equal treatment vis-à-vis other producers of CAVA which have a smaller geographical unit and are able to indicate the geographical origin of the product to the consumer; the publication at issue infringes the Court’s case-law on market access developed in the context of the free movement of goods (Article 34 et seq. TFEU) and allows the cumulative effect of demand in the CAVA market, which infringes Article 101 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 C 369, p. 2.

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, restrictions of use, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of protection, and labelling and presentation (OJ 2019 L 9, p. 2).

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34 of 17 October 2018 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, amendments to product specifications, the register of protected names, cancellation of protection and use of symbols, and of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an appropriate system of checks (OJ 2019 L 9, p. 46).

(4)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 671).

---