Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-347/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Agenzia regionale per lo sviluppo rurale (ERSA) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (External relations — EC-Hungary Agreement 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)
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, association agreement (EU), designation of origin, intellectual property, interpretation of the law, product designation, wine

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/9

— to impose a provisional prohibition of fishing by vessels flying
its flag or registered in its territory when the quota allocated to
it was deemed to be exhausted, and by having finally prohib-
ited fishing only when its quota had already been greatly
exceeded,

— to ensure

the

effective operation of a validation system
including verification by cross-checking data and monitoring
of data by means of a computerised database,

failed to fulfil

its obligations
the Portuguese Republic has
concerning the management and control of
the above fishing
quotas relating to the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, under
Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20
December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries
and aquaculture and Articles 2, 19(1) and (2) and 21(1) and (2)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
policy;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 12 May 2005

in Case C-347/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio Regione
autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Agenzia regionale per
lo sviluppo rurale (ERSA) v Ministero delle Politiche Agri-
cole e Forestali (1)

(External relations — EC-Hungary Agreement on the reci-
procal protection and control of wine names — Protection in
the Community of a name relating to certain wines origin-
ating 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 transi-
tional period — Validity — Legal basis — Article 133 EC —
Principles of international law relating to treaties — Articles
22 to 24 of the TRIPs Agreement — Protection of funda-
mental rights — Right to property)

(2005/C 182/17)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-347/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del

Lazio (Italy), made by decision of 9 June 2003, received at the
Court on 7 August 2003, in the proceedings between Regione
autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Agenzia regionale per lo
sviluppo rurale (ERSA), on the one hand, and Ministero delle
Politiche Agricole e Forestali, on the other, third party: Regione
Veneto — the Court (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A.
Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva
de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G.
Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, in which
it ruled:

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, is not the legal
basis of Council Decision 93/724/EC of 23 November 1993
concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European
Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protec-
tion and control of wine names.

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

3. The prohibition of 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 rules governing homonyms laid
down in Article 4(5) of that agreement.

4. The Joint Declaration concerning 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 states in the first paragraph that in respect of Article 4(5)(a)
of that agreement the Contracting Parties noted that at the time of
the negotiations they were not aware of any specific case to which
the provisions referred to could be applicable, is not a clear misre-
presentation of reality.

5. Articles 22 to 24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights, set out in Annex 1 C to the Agree-
ment establishing the World Trade Organisation, approved on
behalf of the Community, as regards matters within its compe-
tence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994,
are to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the
main proceedings, which concerns homonymity between a geogra-
indication of a third country and a name including the
phical
name of a vine variety used for the description and presentation of
certain Community wines made from it, those provisions do not
require that that name may continue to be used in the future
notwithstanding the twofold circumstance that it has been used in
the past by the producers concerned either in good faith or for at
least 10 years prior to 15 April 1994 and that it clearly identifies
the country, region or area of origin of the protected wine in such
a way as not to mislead the consumer.

C 182/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.7.2005

italico’

6. The right to property does not preclude the prohibition on use by
the operators
region of Friuli-
concerned in the autonomous
Venezia Giulia (Italy) of the word ‘Tocai’ in the term ‘Tocai friu-
for the description and presentation of
lano’ or ‘Tocai
certain Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the
end of a transitional period expiring on 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
annexed to that agreement but not referred to in the latter.

(1) OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.

gency slaughtering, cannot be regarded as being of ‘sound and fair
marketable quality’, as required for the grant of export refunds.

(1) OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 12 May 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

in Case C-415/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(First Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

(State aid — Obligation to recover — Absolute impossibility
of implementation — Absence)

in Case C-409/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof in Société d'exportation de produits
agricoles SA (SEPA) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)

(Export refunds — Beef — Special emergency slaughtering
— Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Article 13 — Sound
and fair marketable quality — Marketability in normal
conditions)

(2005/C 182/18)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-409/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by
decision of 15 July 2003, received at the Court on 1 October
2003,
in the proceedings between Société d'exportation de
produits agricoles SA (SEPA) and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of
the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E.
Juhász (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F.
Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 26 May 2005, in which it ruled:

Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27
November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the applica-
tion of the system of export refunds on agricultural products must be
interpreted as meaning that meat fulfilling the hygiene criteria, the
marketing of which for human consumption within the European
Community is restricted by Community rules to the local market
because it comes from animals which have undergone special emer-

(2005/C 182/19)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Agents: A.

Samoni-Rantou,

In Case C-415/03 Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: D. Triantafyllou and J. Buendía Sierra) v Hellenic
Republic
P. Mylonopoulos,
F. Spathopoulos and P. Anestis) — action under Article 88(2)
EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 25 September
2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A.
Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta
(Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Admin-
istrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, in
which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all
the measures necessary for repayment of
the aid found to be
unlawful and incompatible with the common market — except
that relating to the contributions to the national social security
institution —, in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Deci-
sion 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by
Greece to Olympic Airways, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that article;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.