Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2006 – Confcooperative and Others

(Case C-231/04)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – External relations – Agreement between the EC and Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names – Protection in the Community of a name relating to certain wines originating in Hungary – Geographical indication ‘Tokaj’ – Exchange of letters – Possibility of using the word ‘Tocai’ in the term ‘Tocai friulano’ or ‘Tocai italico’ for the description and presentation of certain Italian wines, in particular quality wines produced in specified regions (‘quality wines psr’), during a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007 – Exclusion of that possibility at the end of the transitional period – Validity – Legal basis – Article 133 EC – Principles of international law relating to treaties – Articles 22 to 24 of the TRIPs Agreement – Protection of fundamental rights – Right to property

1. Preliminary rulings – Answer which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law – Question referred identical to a question on which a ruling has already been given – Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104(3)) (see paras 3-4)

2. International agreements – Agreements entered into by the Community – Conclusion – Opinion – Agreement between the EC and Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names (Art. 133 EC; EC-Hungary Association Agreement; EC-Hungary Agreement on wines) (see para. 8, operative part 1-2)

3. International agreements – Agreements entered into by the Community – Agreement between the EC and Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names (EC-Hungary Agreement on wines, Art. 4(5)) (see para. 8, operative part 3-4)

4. International agreements – Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) ( TRIPs Agreement, Arts 22 to 24) (see para. 8, operative part 5)

5. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Property rights – Restrictions (EC-Hungary Agreement on wines) (see para. 8, operative part 6)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio – Validity of the Agreement between the European Community and Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names of 23 November 1993 – Validity of an exchange of letters between the parties to the agreement laying down a prohibition on the use of the name ‘Tocai’ in Italy after 2007.

Operative part

1. The Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 93/742/Euratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and of the Commission of 13 December 1993 does not constitute the legal basis of Council Decision 93/724/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names.

2. Article 133 EC, as referred to in the preamble to Decision 93/724, constitutes an appropriate legal basis for the conclusion by the Community alone of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names.

3. The ban on the use of the name ‘Tocai’ in Italy after 31 March 2007, resulting from the exchange of letters concerning Article 4 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names, is not contrary to the regime governing homonymous geographical indications in Article 4(5) of that Agreement.

4. The joint declaration regarding Article 4(5) of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names, in so far as it outlines, in its first paragraph, that, as regards Article 4(5)(a) of the same Agreement, the contracting parties noted that, at the time of the negotiations, they did not know of any specific case where the provisions in question might apply, does not constitute a manifestly erroneous interpretation of reality.

5. Articles 22 to 24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, found at Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, concluded on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as the present one concerning homonymy between a geographical indication of a non-member country and a vine name used for the description and presentation of certain Community wines produced from those vines, these provisions do not require that both the names can continue to be used in the future, notwithstanding the twofold fact that they have been used in the past by the respective producers either in good faith or for at least 10 years prior to 15 April 1994 and that each name indicates clearly the country or region or area of origin of the protected wine to which it refers in such a way as not to mislead consumers.