Case C-285/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Heinrich Stefan Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Agriculture — Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999 and (EC) No 753/2002 — Common organisation of the market in wine — Description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products — Protection of traditional terms — Translation into another language — Use for wines from another producing Member State)
Date: 2008-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, designation of origin, interpretation of the law, preparation for market, product quality, viticulture, wine

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/5

Operative part of the judgment

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

The Court:

that, by encouraging economic operators wishing to
1. Declares
market
in Belgium construction products lawfully manufactured
and/or marketed in another Member State to obtain Belgian marks
of conformity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Spain

(Case C-248/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom
of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Restric-
tions — Research and development — Rules for the deduction
of costs incurred abroad)

(2008/C 116/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March
a preliminary ruling from the
2008 (reference for
Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Heinrich Stefan
Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz

(Case C-285/06) (1)

(Agriculture — Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999 and (EC)
No 753/2002 — Common organisation of the market in wine
— Description, designation, presentation and protection of
certain wine sector products — Protection of traditional terms
— Translation into another language — Use for wines from
another producing Member State)

(2008/C 116/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: R. Lyal and L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agents)

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez,
acting as Agent)

Applicant: Heinrich Stefan Schneider

Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringe-
ment of Articles 43 EC, 48 EC and 49 EC and Articles 31 EEA
and 36 EEA — Rules for deducting costs for research and devel-
innovation incurred abroad more
opment and technological
rigorous than those applicable to costs incurred in Spain

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force rules for the deduction of
costs relating to research and development and technological inno-
vation which are less favourable in respect of costs incurred abroad
than costs incurred in Spain — such rules deriving from Article 35
of the Law on corporation tax, as amended by Royal Legislative
Decree 4/2004 of 5 March 2004 — the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC on
freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, and the
corresponding articles in the Agreement on the European Economic
Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 36 of that Agree-
ment;

Intervening
Bundesverwaltungsgericht

party: Vertreterin

des

Bundesinteresses

beim

Re:

as

1),

amended

by Commission Regulation

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht
(Germany) — Interpretation of Article 47(2)(b) and (c) and the
fifth indent of point (B)(1)(b) and point (B)(3) of Annex VII to
Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179,
p.
(EC)
No 1512/2005 of 15 September 2005 amending Regulation
(EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying
Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the descrip-
tion, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine
sector products (OJ 2005 L 241, p. 15), and of Articles 23 and
24 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April
2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation
(EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation,
presentation and protection of certain wine sector products
(OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1) — Prohibition against imitation or

C 116/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2008

evocation of protected additional traditional terms — Possibility
of using such a term in a language other than that of the
protected traditional term or for wines from a Member State
other than those of the protected traditional term — Use of the
French language terms ‘Réserve’ or ‘Grande réserve’ or the
German language terms ‘Reserve’ or ‘Privat-Reserve’ for German
wines

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 47(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of
17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in
wine, in conjunction with point (B)(3) of Annex VII thereto and
Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of
29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Regulation
No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presenta-
tion and protection of certain wine sector products, as amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1512/2005 of 15 September
2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the use of a particular
relating to the production or ageing method or the quality of a
wine may be permitted under those provisions only if there is no
risk that it will mislead the persons to whom it is addressed by
creating confusion between that particular and the other traditional
terms referred to in the fifth indent of point (B)(1)(b) of Annex VII
to Regulation No 1493/1999 and Article 23 of Regulation
No 753/2002. It is for the national court to assess whether the
terms in issue in the main proceedings are likely to give rise to such
a risk.

2. Article 24(2)(a) of Regulation No 753/2002, as amended by
Regulation No 1512/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that
there may be imitation or evocation of a traditional term within the
meaning of that provision where that term is translated into a
language other than that in which that term is given in Annex III
to that regulation, if that translation is likely to cause confusion or
to mislead the persons to whom it
is for the
national court to examine whether that is the case in the dispute
before it.

is addressed.

It

3. Article 24(2) of Regulation No 753/2002, as amended by Regu-
lation No 1512/2005,
is to be interpreted as meaning that a
traditional term listed in Annex III to that regulation is protected
both with regard to wines of the same category/categories from the
same producer Member State as that traditional term and with
regard to wines of the same category/categories from other producer
Member States.

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
State, Netherlands) — Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan
Sociale Werkvoorziening (C-383/06), Gemeente Rotterdam
(C-384/06)
en
Werkgelegenheid, and Sociaal Economische Samenwerking
(C-385/06) v Algemene Directie voor de
West-Brabant

v Minister

Sociale

Zaken

van

Arbeidsvoorziening

(Case C-383/06 to C-385/06) (1)

(Structural Funds — Article 23(1) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4253/88 — Withdrawal and recovery of Com-
munity financial aid — Article 249 EC — Protection of legiti-
mate expectations and legal certainty)

(2008/C 116/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan

Applicants:
Sociale
Werkvoorziening (C-383/06), Gemeente Rotterdam (C-384/06),
Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant (C-385/06)

Defendants: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid,
Algemene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorziening

Re:

for

Reference
a preliminary ruling — Raad van State,
Netherlands Interpretation of Article 23(1) of Council Regu-
lation EEC No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down
provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 (EEC) as
regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural
Funds between themselves and with the operations of
the
European Investment Bank and the other existing financial
instruments — Withdrawal and recovery of Community finan-
cial aid — Articles 10 and 249 EC — Application of general
principles of Community law

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of
19 December 1988 laying down provisions for
implementing
Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of
the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing
financial
instruments, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 requires the Member States to
recover any amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence
without there being any need for authority to do so under national
law;

2. The recovery of amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negli-
gence must be carried out on the basis of Article 23(1) of Regu-
lation No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93,
and in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in national