Case C-23/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Confcooperativa Friuli Venezia Giulia, Luigi Soini, Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinat Mario e figlio 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

C 82/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.4.2007

— annul the subsequent acts of the competition procedure,
and in particular the list adopted by the selection board
of candidates meeting the conditions fixed by the notice
of competition, the Commission decision determining
on that basis the number of posts to be filled, the list of
suitable candidates adopted by the selection board on
completion of its task, and the appointment decisions
taken by the appointing authority on that basis;

In the alternative, the appellant claims lastly that the judgment
under appeal is inadequately reasoned in so far as the Court of
First Instance did not respond to its argument that the competi-
tion notice contains an internal contradiction because that
notice appears to exclude the candidatures of auxiliary staff, but
for the calculation of professional experience that
to admit
acquired as a member of the auxiliary staff in certain function
groups.

— order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings

before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward a single plea in law in support of
her appeal, alleging infringement by the Court of First Instance
of the concept of internal competition within the meaning of
Articles 4 and 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations in the version in
force at the time of publication of the competition notice, of
the objective assigned to recruitment by Article 27 and the first
paragraph of Article 4 of those regulations, and of the principle
of equal treatment or, at the very least, of the obligation to state
reasons.

In that plea, the appellant asserts, in essence, that it is apparent
from the case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First
Instance that the expression ‘competition internal to the institu-
tion’ concerns all the persons in the service of the institution
because of a connection under public law, including auxiliary
staff, and that the Court of First Instance misconstrued that
case-law and the meaning of the expression ‘internal competi-
tion’ by focusing on the main purpose of
the competition,
defined on the basis of subjective qualifications, rather than on
its intrinsic nature, defined on the basis of objective conditions
of admission to the competition stipulated in the competition
notice.

The appellant claims next that, whilst it cannot be denied that
the appointing authority has wide discretion when specifying in
the competition notice the conditions of admissibility to that
competition, that discretion must always be exercised according
to the requirements of the posts to be filled and the interest of
the service, so that the argument that auxiliary staff can be
excluded on the basis that, unlike officials and temporary staff,
they have not had to prove, at the time of their initial recruit-
ment, that they are of the highest standard of ability, efficiency
and integrity cannot be accepted. Proof of such qualities must
be apparent simply from success in the pre-selection tests and
selection tests provided for by the competition notice. The same
is moreover true as regards proof of aptitude to carry out the
tasks of the posts to be filled.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on
25 January 2007 — Confcooperativa Friuli Venezia Giulia,
Luigi Soini, Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinat Mario e figlio v
Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali,
Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Case C-23/07)

(2007/C 82/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confcooperativa Friuli Venezia Giulia, Luigi Soini,
Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinat Mario e Figlio

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?

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