Joined Cases C-23/07 and C-24/07: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — Confcooperative Friuli Venezia Giulia (C-23/07), Luigi Soini (C-23/07 and C-24/07), Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinato Mario e figlio (C-23/07), Cantina Produttori Cormòns Soc. cons. arl (C-24/07) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, alimentari e forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia (Agriculture — Regulations (EC) Nos 1493/1999, 753/2002 and 1429/2004 — Common organisation of the market in wine — Labelling of wines — Use of names of vine varieties or synonyms thereof — Geographical indication Tokaj for wines originating in Hungary — Possible use of vine variety name Tocai friulano or Tocai italico in addition to the geographical indication of certain wines originating in Italy — Exclusion after a transitional period of thirteen years expiring on 31 March 2007 — Validity — Legal basis — Article 34 EC — Principle of non-discrimination — Principles of international law on treaties — Accession of Hungary to the European Union — Articles 22 to 24 of the TRIPs Agreement)
Date: 2008-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, Italy, common organisation of markets, designation of origin, interpretation of the law, originating product, product designation, viticulture, wine of superior quality

C 209/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

2. Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes
legislation of a Member State which allows an exemption from
corporation tax for certain dividends received from resident compa-
nies by resident insurance companies but excludes such an exemp-
tion for similar dividends received from non-resident companies, in
so far as it entails less favourable treatment of the latter dividends.

3. Articles 43 EC and 48 EC must be interpreted as precluding the
inclusion in the tax base of a resident company established in a
Member State of profits made by a controlled foreign company in
another Member State, where those profits are subject in that State
to a lower level of taxation than that applicable in the first State,
unless such inclusion relates only to wholly artificial arrangements
intended to escape the national tax normally payable.

Where it is established that the legislation of a Member State
constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment prohibited by
Article 43 EC or a restriction on the free movement of capital
prohibited by Article 56 EC, the national court may, in order to
establish the recoverable losses, determine whether
the injured
parties have shown reasonable diligence in order to avoid those
losses or to limit
they
their extent and whether,
availed themselves in time of all legal remedies available to them.
However, in order to prevent the exercise of the rights which Arti-
cles 43 EC and 56 EC confer on individuals from being rendered
impossible or excessively difficult, the national court may determine
whether the application of that legislation, coupled, where appro-
priate, with the relevant provisions of Double Taxation Conven-
tions, would,
in any event, have led to the failure of the claims
brought by the claimants in the main proceedings before the tax
authorities of the Member State concerned.

in particular,

Accordingly, such a tax measure must not be applied where it is
proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by
third parties,
that
controlled foreign company is actually established in the host
Member State and carries on genuine economic activities there.

tax motives,

that despite

existence of

the

However, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC are to be interpreted as not
precluding national tax legislation which imposes certain compli-
ance requirements where the resident company seeks exemption
from taxes already paid on the profits of that controlled foreign
company in the State in which it is resident, provided that the aim
the controlled foreign
of
company is actually established and that its economic activities are
genuine without that entailing undue administrative constraints.

those requirements

to verify that

is

4. Articles 56 EC to 58 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding
the legislation of a Member State which grants a corporation tax
concession in respect of certain dividends received from resident
companies by resident companies but excludes such a concession for
dividends received from companies established in a non-member
country particularly where the grant of that concession is subject to
conditions compliance with which can be verified by the competent
authorities of that Member State only by obtaining information
from the non-member country where the distributing company is
established.

5. In the absence of Community legislation, it is for the domestic legal
system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals
having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules
governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive
from Community law, including the classification of claims brought
by injured parties before national courts and tribunals. Those courts
and tribunals are, however, obliged to ensure that individuals have
an effective legal remedy enabling them to obtain reimbursement of
the tax unlawfully levied on them and the amounts paid to that
tax. As
Member State or withheld by it directly against
regards other loss or damage which a person may have sustained by
reason of a breach of Community law for which a Member State is
liable, the latter is under a duty to make reparation for the loss or
damage caused to individuals under the conditions set out in para-
graph 51 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93
Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029, but
that does not preclude the State from being liable under less restric-
tive conditions, where national law so provides.

that

(1) OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.

the Court

(Second Chamber) of 12 June
Order of
2008 (references
for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy)) —
Confcooperative Friuli Venezia Giulia (C-23/07), Luigi Soini
(C-23/07 and C-24/07), Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinato
Mario e figlio (C-23/07), Cantina Produttori Cormòns
Soc. cons. arl (C-24/07) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole,
alimentari e forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Joined Cases C-23/07 and C-24/07) (1)

(Agriculture — Regulations (EC) Nos 1493/1999, 753/2002
and 1429/2004 — Common organisation of the market in
wine — Labelling of wines — Use of names of vine varieties
or synonyms thereof — Geographical indication ‘Tokaj’ for
wines originating in Hungary — Possible use of vine variety
in addition to the
name ‘Tocai friulano’ or ‘Tocai
geographical indication of certain wines originating in Italy
— Exclusion after a transitional period of thirteen years
expiring on 31 March 2007 — Validity — Legal basis —
Article 34 EC — Principle of non-discrimination — Principles
of international law on treaties — Accession of Hungary to
the European Union — Articles 22 to 24 of the TRIPs
Agreement)

italico’

(2008/C 209/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/15

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confcooperative Friuli Venezia Giulia (C-23/07),
Luigi Soini
(C-23/07 and C-24/07), Azienda Agricola Vivai
Pinato Mario e figlio (C-23/07), Cantina Produttori Cormòns
Soc. cons. arl (C-24/07)

Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, alimentari e fore-
stali and Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo
regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Regulations 1493/1999
and 753/2002 as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC)
No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council
Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, desig-
nation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector
(OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11) — Interpretation of
products
Article 34(2) EC — Designation of wines produced in Hungary
and in the Community — Abolition of the designation ‘Tocai
friulano’ — Discrimination against the producers and users of
that designation as compared to the producers and users of
other designations

Operative part of the order

3. The second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC does not preclude the
provisions of Regulation No 753/2002, reproduced in Regulation
No 1429/2004, prohibiting the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to desig-
nate and present certain Italian quality wines produced in specified
regions at the end of a transitional period expiring on 31 March
2007.

4. Article 19(2) of Regulation No 753/2002 must be interpreted as
meaning that it does not preclude the provisions of Regulation
No 753/2002, reproduced in Regulation No 1429/2004, prohi-
biting the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain
Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the end of a
transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007.

5. Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/1999 must be interpreted as
meaning that, in implementing the provisions of Articles 23 and
24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Prop-
erty Rights, which constitutes Annex 1C to the Agreement estab-
lishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed in Marrakesh
on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC
of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the
European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of
the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotia-
tions (1986-1994) and in particular the provision in Article 24(6)
of that agreement, those provisions do not preclude the adoption of
measures such as those laid down in Regulation No 753/2002,
reproduced in Regulation No 1429/2004, prohibiting the use of
the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain Italian quality
wines produced in specified regions at the end of a transitional
period expiring on 31 March 2007.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

the Republic of Malta,

the Republic of Poland,

the Republic of Lithuania,

concerning the conditions of accession of
the Czech
1. The Act
the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the
Republic,
the Republic of
Republic of Latvia,
Hungary,
the
Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments
to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be
interpreted as meaning that, under Article 2 of that Act, the provi-
sions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April
2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation
(EC) No 1493/1999 as
the description, designation,
regards
presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, in so far
as they prohibit the use of
to designate and
present certain Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at
the end of a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007, form
an integral part of the acquis communautaire existing on 1 May
2004 and, after being reproduced in Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation
No 753/2002, continued to apply after that date.

the name ‘Tocai’

Order of
the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prud'homie de
pêche (France)) — Jonathan Pilato v Jean-Claude Bourgault

(Case C-109/07) (1)

(Meaning of court or tribunal of a Member State — Lack of
jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

(2008/C 209/20)

Language of the case: French

2. Article 53 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May
1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine consti-
tutes an adequate legal basis on which the Commission of the
European Communities may adopt the provisions of Regulation
No 753/2002, reproduced in Regulation No 1429/2004, prohi-
biting the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain
Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the end of a
transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007.

Referring court

Prud'homie de pêche