Action brought on 18 May 2004 by FederDOC and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-170/04)

(2004/C 179/29)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 May 2004 by FederDOC – National Confederation of voluntary associations for the protection of designations of origin and typical geographical indications of Italian and other wines, represented by Luciano Spagnuolo Vigorita, Paolo Tanoni and Roberto Gandin, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas and main arguments

The present action is directed against Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 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 (1).

Essentially, the applicants point to the real danger that implementation of the contested regulation could result in a degree of liberalisation, in favour of third-country producers, as regards the use of the following traditional indications which distinguish specific Italian wines known throughout the world: Amarone, Cannellino, Brunello, Est!Est!Est!, Falerno, Governo all'uso toscano, Gutturnio, Lacryma Christi, Lambiccato, Morellino, Recioto, Sciacchetrà, Sciac-trà, Sforzato (or Sfurzat), Torcolato, Vergine, Vino Nobile, Vin santo (or Vino Santo or Vinsanto). That would prejudice the position which has, by dint of their efforts, been achieved by the producers of the Member States in the wine market (producers bound by observance of strict parameters as to quantity and quality) and, above all, would result in unacceptable damage to consumer confidence. Third-country producers would not in fact be required to observe the relevant production parameters and could ultimately place in circulation within the Community products without the oenological and organoloptic qualities which the wines in question must possess.

Under national legislation all the applicants are legitimately entitled to secure the use of the abovementioned traditional indications or, at any rate, to use them.

In support of their claims the applicants consider, in particular, that the Commission has exceeded the competences conferred on it and adopted the contested regulation without an adequate statement of reasons and without first obtaining the opinion of the Management Committee for wine established under Regulation No 1493/1999 or seeking the views of the applicants themselves.

The applicants further consider that certain provisions of the contested regulation contravene important principles undermining the EC Treaty such as those in the sector of agriculture, of competition, consumer protection, equal treatment, proportionality, acquired rights and legal certainty. Specific provisions of Regulation No 1493/1999 (Articles 47, 48 and 49) are then also infringed by the contested regulation which also runs counter to Articles 23(3) and 24(4) of the Marrakesh Trips Agreement of 15 April 1994 (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) to which the Community is a party.

The applicants also claim that the contested regulation contravenes the obligation to provide a statement of the reasons on which it is based.

(1)  OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16.