Case C-231/04: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Fvg Federagricole, Friulvini Soc. coop. rl, Cantina Sociale di Ramuscello e S. Vito v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Regione Veneto (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)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, TRIPS, association agreement (EU), designation of origin, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, product designation, wine

C 224/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

Article 2 of Council Directive 85/433/EEC of 16 September 1985
concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications in pharmacy, including measures to
facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment relating to
certain activities in the field of pharmacy, must be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State which complies merely with the
minimal level of recognition of diplomas laid down by that directive is
not exercising any discretion conferred by that directive.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale del Lazio — Validity of the EC-Hungary Agreement
of 23 November 1993 on the reciprocal protection and control
of wine names — Validity of an exchange of letters between
the parties to the agreement establishing a ban on use of the
name ‘Tocai’ in Italy from 2007 onwards

(1) OJ C 182, 23.07.2005.

Operative part of the order

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Confcoo-
perative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Fvg Federa-
gricole, Friulvini Soc. coop. rl, Cantina Sociale di Ramus-
cello e S. Vito v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Fore-
stali, Regione Veneto

(Case C-231/04) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Proce-
dure — 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 indica-
tion ‘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)

(2006/C 224/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring Court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

Parties

Applicants: Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Coopera-
zione Fvg Federagricole, Friulvini Soc. coop. rl, Cantina Sociale
di Ramuscello e S. Vito

Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole
Regione Veneto

e Forestali,

on

behalf

(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
by Decision
the
93/742/Euratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and of the Commis-
sion 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 Com-
munity and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection
and control of wine names.

Community

of

(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
the Agreement between the European Community and the
of
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, insofar 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 Agree-
ment 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 indica-
tion of a non-member country and a vine name used for the
certain Community wines
description and presentation of
produced from those vines, these provisions do not require that
both the names can continue to be used in the future, notwith-
standing 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 consu-
mers.

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/15

(6) The right to property does not preclude the ban imposed on the
producers of the Friuli-Venezia Giulio region (Italy) concerning
use of the term ‘Tocai’ in the names ‘Tocai friulano’ or ‘Tocai
for the description and presentation of certain quality
italico’
Italian wines produced in a specified region after the transitional
period ending on 31 March 2007, as provided for
in 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 forming part of it.

(1) OJ C 201 of 07.08.2004.

the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as
meaning that the exemption for which it provides applies only to the
resale of goods previously acquired by a taxable person for an
exempted activity under that article, in so far as the value added tax
paid upon initial acquisition of the goods in question was not deduc-
tible.

(1) OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005.

OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 July 2006 (refer-
ences for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione tribu-
taria provinciale di Napoli, Commissione tributaria regio-
nale di Firenze — Italy) — Casa di cura privata Salus SpA
v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Napoli 4

(Joined Cases C-18/05 and C-155/05) (1)

(Second subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of
Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13.B(c) —
Exemptions — Supplies of goods destined wholly for an
exempted activity without being deductible)

Order of the Court of 13 June 2006 — Ornella Mancini v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-172/05 P) (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Post of medical officer — Notice of
vacancy — Comparative examination of merits — Composi-
tion of the selection board — Appeal in part manifestly inad-
missible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2006/C 224/27)

Language of the case: French

(2006/C 224/26)

Language of the cases: Italian

Parties

Referring Courts

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli, Commissione
tributaria regionale di Firenze

Parties

Applicants: Casa di cura privata Salus SpA (C-18/05), Agenzia
delle Entrate — Ufficio di Firenze 1 (C-155/05)

Defendants: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Napoli 4 (C-18/05), Villa
Maria Beatrice Hospital Srl (C-155/05)

Re:

Appellant: Ornella Mancini (represented by: E. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Bersc-
heid, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, avocat)

Re

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2005 in Case T-137/
03 Mancini v Commission in which the Court of First Instance
dismissed an application, firstly, for annulment of the Commis-
sion's decision not to appoint the applicant to the post of
medical officer at the ‘Medical Service — Brusells’ unit and of
the decision to appoint another candidate to that post and,
secondly, for damages.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria
provinciale di Napoli — Interpretation of Article 13.B(c) of the
Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions within the territory of the
country — Exemptions for supplies of goods used wholly for
an exempted activity or which are not deductible — Direct
applicability

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part of the order

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

The
first part of Article 13.B(c) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of