Case C-24/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Per Il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Cantina Produttori Cormòns, Luigi Soini v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia
Date: 2007-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common organisation of markets, designation of origin, interpretation of the law, legal basis, product designation, viticulture, wine

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/15

3. Does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC
Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and
consumers of agricultural products within the European
Community, prohibit discrimination against producers and
users of just one wine name, namely that relating to the
wine ‘Tocai friulano’, among the 122 names listed in Annex
I to Regulation No 753/2002 (as amended by Regulation No
1429/2002), in so far as it prohibits the continued use of
that name after 31 March 2007?

listed in Annex I

4. Is Article 19(2) of Commission Regulation No 753/2002,
which provides authority for the use of the names of the
vine varieties
regulation (as
amended by Regulation No 1429/2004), to be interpreted as
meaning that it is possible and lawfully permissible for there
to be cases of homonymy among the names of vine varieties
and geographical indications which refer to wines produced
within the European Community?

to that

5. If the answer to the fourth question is in the affirmative,
does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC
Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and
consumers of agricultural products within the European
Community, preclude the Commission from applying in one
of its own regulations (753/2002) the criterion of homo-
nymy in a manner deriving from the application of Annex I
to that regulation, to the effect, that is to say, of recognising
the legality of the use of many names of vine varieties which
include names that are wholly or partly homonymous with
an equal number of geographical indications, whilst refusing
to accept as lawful the use of just one name of vine variety
(‘Tocai friulano’), which has been lawfully used for centuries
in the European market?

6. Is Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to be interpreted as
meaning that, in implementing the provisions of Articles 23
and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement, and in particular the provi-
sion in Article 24(6)
thereof, concerning homonymous
names of wines, it is not possible for the Council of Minis-
ters or the Member States (still less the European Commis-
sion) to adopt or approve measures such as Commission
Regulation No 753/2002, which, with regard to homon-
ymous names, afford different
to wine names
having the same characteristics from the point of view of
homonymity?

treatment

7. Is the effect of the express reference to Articles 23 and 24 of
the TRIPS Agreement in recital 56 in the preamble to and
Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to make the provision
in Article 24(6), which establishes the right of the States that
are parties
to protect homonymous
names, directly applicable within the Community legal order,
in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice?

to that agreement

(1) OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1.
(3) OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale Per Il Lazio (Italy) lodged on
25 January 2007 — Cantina Produttori Cormòns, Luigi
Soini v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e
Forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Case C-24/07)

(2007/C 82/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Per Il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cantina Produttori Cormòns, Luigi Soini

Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Fore-
stali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

Questions referred

1. Is the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Hungary to the
European Union (OJEC L 236 of 23 September 2003) to be
interpreted as meaning, with regard to the names of wines
produced in Hungary and in the European Community, that,
with effect from 1 May 2004, only the provisions of Com-
munity legislation referred to in Regulation No 1493/99 (1)
and Regulation No 753/2002 (2), as amended by Regulation
No 1429/2004 (3), are applicable?

2. Does Article 52 of Regulation No 1493/99 constitute an
adequate legal basis on which the European Commission
may abolish the use of the name of a wine (in the present
case, ‘Tocai friulano’) which derives from a vine variety that
is lawfully entered in the appropriate registers of the Italian
State and is referred to in relevant Community regulations?

3. Does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC
Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and
consumers of agricultural products within the European
Community, prohibit discrimination against producers and
users of just one wine name, namely that relating to the
wine ‘Tocai
listed in
Annex I to Regulation No 753/2002 (as amended by Regu-
lation No 1429/2002), in so far as it prohibits the continued
use of that name after 31 March 2007?

friulano’, among the 122 names

listed in Annex I

4. Is Article 19(2) of Commission Regulation No 753/2002,
which provides authority for the use of the names of the
vine varieties
regulation (as
amended by Regulation No 1429/2004), to be interpreted as
meaning that it is possible and lawfully permissible for there
to be cases of homonymy among the names of vine varieties
and geographical indications which refer to wines produced
within the European Community?

to that

C 82/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.4.2007

5. If the answer to the fourth question is in the affirmative,
does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC
Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and
consumers of agricultural products within the European
Community, preclude the Commission from applying in one
of its own regulations (753/2002) the criterion of homo-
nymy in a manner deriving from the application of Annex I
to that regulation, to the effect, that is to say, of recognising
the legality of the use of many names of vine varieties which
include names that are wholly or partly homonymous with
an equal number of geographical indications, whilst refusing
to accept as lawful the use of just one name of vine variety
(‘Tocai friulano’), which has been lawfully used for centuries
in the European market?

6. Is Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to be interpreted as
meaning that, in implementing the provisions of Articles 23
and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement, and in particular the provi-
sion in Article 24(6)
thereof, concerning homonymous
names of wines, it is not possible for the Council of Minis-
ters or the Member States (still less the European Commis-
sion) to adopt or approve measures such as Commission
Regulation No 753/2002, which, with regard to homon-
ymous names, afford different
to wine names
having the same characteristics from the point of view of
homonymity?

treatment

7. Is the effect of the express reference to Articles 23 and 24 of
the TRIPS Agreement in recital 56 in the preamble to and
Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to make the provision
in Article 24(6), which establishes the right of the States that
are parties
to protect homonymous
names, directly applicable within the Community legal order,
in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice?

to that agreement

(1) OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1.
(3) OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
lodged on 26 January 2007 — Banque Féderative du Crédit
Mutuel v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'In-
dustrie

(Case C-27/07)

(2007/C 82/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banque Féderative du Crédit Mutuel

Defendant: Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

Question referred

The add-back to the taxable income of a parent company estab-
lished in France of 5 % of the tax credits attributed upon the
distribution of profits by a subsidiary established in another
Member State of the European Union where those distributed
profits have been subject in that other State to a withholding
tax, has no effect on the taxation level of the parent company if
the latter is able to set off all the tax credits against the tax
payable. Where the parent company did not decide to redistri-
bute those profits to its own shareholders within five years, and
in consequence is no longer able to use the fiscal advantage
represented by those tax credits, can the taxation — additional
to corporation tax — which results from the add-back of 5 %
of the tax credits to its taxable income be regarded as permitted
under Article 7(2) of Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 (1),
in view of the small amount of such a tax and the fact that it
was established directly in conjunction with payment of tax
credits,
introduced in order to mitigate the economic double
taxation of dividends, or must it be regarded as contrary to the
objectives of Article 4 of the same Directive?

(1) Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
subsidiaries of different Member states (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).

Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by NV Ter Lembeek
International against the judgment delivered by the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition)
on 23 November 2006 in Case T-217/02 NV Ter Lembeek
International v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-28/07 P)

(2007/C 82/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: NV Ter Lembeek International
(represented by:
J.-P. Vande Maele, F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European