ROSE WINE ' , ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 355/79 PROVIDES THAT ' IN THE CASE OF TABLE WINES , THE DESCRIPTION ON THE LABELLING MAY BE SUPPLEMENTED BY THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION : ( A ) A STATEMENT AS TO WHETHER THE WINE IS RED , ROSE OR WHITE . . . ' . AS STATED IN THE SECOND RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO THAT REGULATION , THE PURPOSE OF THAT INFORMATION ' SHOULD BE TO SUPPLY POTENTIAL BUYERS AND PUBLIC BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR ORGANIZING AND SUPERVISING THE MARKETING OF THE PRODUCTS CONCERNED WITH INFORMATION WHICH IS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AND ACCURATE TO ENABLE THEM TO FORM AN OPINION OF THE PRODUCTS ' . THE THIRD RECITAL DRAWS A DISTINCTION ' BETWEEN MANDATORY INFORMATION NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY THE PRODUCT AND OPTIONAL INFORMATION DESIGNED MAINLY TO INDICATE THE SPECIAL PROPERTIES OF THE PRODUCT OR TO CHARACTERIZE IT ' .
22 IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING THE CONSUMER THE BEST POSSIBLE INFORMATION THAT ARTICLE 43 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 355/79 PROVIDES THAT THE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENTATION , INCLUDING ANY FORM OF ADVERTISING , OF PRODUCTS HELD FOR DISPOSAL ON THE MARKET ' MUST NOT BE LIABLE TO CAUSE CONFUSION AS TO THE NATURE , ORIGIN AND COMPOSITION OF THE PRODUCT ; THIS SHALL APPLY TO THE INFORMATION REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 2 . . . ' .
23 IT IS TO BE INFERRED FROM THOSE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE DESCRIPTION OF WINES THAT THE COMMUNITY RULES ALLOW A TABLE WINE TO BE DESCRIBED AS A ROSE WINE , PROVIDED THAT IT IS OBJECTIVELY ROSE IN COLOUR AND MAY THEREBY BE DISTINGUISHED FROM A RED WINE OR A WHITE WINE WITHOUT CONSUMERS OR OTHER PERSONS BEING LED INTO ERROR AS TO THE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROPERTIES OF THE PRODUCT . HOWEVER , IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO SAY WHETHER THE CRITERION OF ROSE COLOUR IS SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF THE WINE IN QUESTION .
24 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE FEDERATION ' S CONTENTION THAT TO SELL A WINE RESULTING FROM THE COUPAGE OF RED TABLE WINES WITH ROSE TABLE WINES UNDER THE APPELLATION ROSE WINE CONSTITUTES A DECEPTION BECAUSE THAT WINE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FRENCH PRACTICE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED .
25 AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 MARCH 1984 ( CASE 16/83 PRANTL , SUPRA ), THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN WINE MAY BE REGARDED AS FORMING A COMPLETE SYSTEM , ' ESPECIALLY AS REGARDS PRICES AND INTERVENTION , TRADE WITH NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , RULES ON PRODUCTION AND OENOLOGICAL PRACTICES AND AS REGARDS REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF WINES AND LABELLING ' . THEREFORE , SUBJECT TO ANY SPECIAL COMMUNITY PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY , THE MEMBER STATES NO LONGER HAVE ANY POWERS IN THAT FIELD .
26 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT NO SUCH SPECIAL PROVISION EXISTS . ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ) ( H )