Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 October 2000 in Case C-155/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di Oderzo): Giuseppe Busolin and Others v Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi — Ufficio di Conegliano — Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (Agriculture — Common organisation of the agricultural markets — Market in wine — Compulsory distillation scheme)
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural production, agricultural production policy, agricultural region, interpretation of the law, marketing year, regulation of agricultural production

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 19 October 2000

in Case C-155/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretore di Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di Oderzo):
Giuseppe Busolin and Others v Ispettorato Centrale
Repressione Frodi — Ufficio di Conegliano — Ministero
delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (1)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the agricultural
markets — Market in wine — Compulsory distillation
scheme)

(2001/C 28/01)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

Italy,

In Case C-155/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Treviso,
Sezione Distaccata di Oderzo (Treviso Magistrates’ Court,
Oderzo Division),
for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Giuseppe
Busolin and Others and Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi
— Ufficio di Conegliano — Ministero, delle Risorse Agricole,
Alimentari c Forestali — on the validity of Article 39(3), (4)
and (11) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March
1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ
1987 L 84, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1566/93 of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 154, p. 39), and of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994
opening compulsory distillation as provided for in Article 39
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and derogating for
the 1993/94 wine year from certain detailed rules for the
application thereof
(OJ 1994 L 44, p. 9) — the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, A. La Pergola, and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
19 October 2000, in which it has ruled:

Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a
kind as to affect the validity of Article 39(3), (4) and (11) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common
organisation of the market in wine, as amended by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1566/93 of 14 June 1993, or of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994 opening compulsory
distillation as provided for in Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 822/87 and derogating for the 1993/94 wine year from certain
detailed rules for the application thereof.

(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 7 November 2000

in Case C-168/98: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Euro-
pean Parliament (1)

(Action for annulment — Freedom of establishment —
Mutual recognition of diplomas — Harmonisation — Obli-
gation to state reasons — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of
the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member
State other than that in which the qualification was acquired)

(2001/C 28/02)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-168/98: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
originally represented by N. Schmit and subsequently by