Case Law Of The Court Of Justice Of European Union: A Visit To The Wine Cellar

• Author: Alina Mihaela Conea
• Pages: 139-159

LESIJ NO. XXV, VOL. 2/2018

CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF EUROPEAN UNION: A VISIT TO

THE WINE CELLAR

Alina Mihaela CONEA

Abstract

It must be observed that a quality wine is a very specific product. Its particular qualities and

characteristics, which result from a combination of natural and human factors, are linked to its

geographical area of origin and vigilance must be exercised and efforts made in order for them to be

maintained. (Court of Justice of European Union, Rioja Wine Judgement)

1

The present paper will consider some of the most relevant judgements of the Court of Justice of

European Union regarding wine. Coincidentally or not many of these cases are also landmark

decisions of the European Union law.

The purpose of this paper is to present the variety of European Union law areas enriched through

the Court wine judgments: intellectual property, free movement of goods, fiscal barrier to trade, EU

legal order, fundamental rights, public health and external relations.

Surveying the wine jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of European Union resembles a wine

testing. One can sense the savours rich bouquet that the case law expresses, on strong cultural choices,

policies, lifestyle or identity at national and European level.

Keywords: wine, Court of Justice of Eu ropean Union, intellectual property, international

agreement, taxation.

1. Introduction

The European Union is the world

leading producer of wine

1

. Almost half of

the world’s vineyards are in the European

Union (EU) and the EU pr oduces and

consumes around 60% of the world’s wine

2

.

 Assistant Lecturer, PhD, Faculty of Law, “Nicolae Titulescu” University, B ucharest (e-mail:

alinaconea@gmail.com).

1

Judgment of the Court of 16 May 2000, Kingdom of Belgium v Kingdom of Spain (Rioja wine), Case C-388/95,

ECLI:EU:C:2000:244, p. 57.

1

According to European Commision, it accounts for 45% of world wine-growing areas, 65% of production, 57%

of global consumption and 70% of exports in global terms, https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/wine_en.

2

Meloni, Giulia and Swinnen, Johan F. M., The Political Economy of European Wine Regulations (October 17,

2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2279338 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2279338.

3

The basic two regulations are: Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 17 December, establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council

Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (CMO Regulation):

and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the

financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC)

No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008.

Therefore, wine is a complex and vivid

area of EU law. A simple search of word

“wine” on EUR-Lex shows 19066 results.

When refined, EUR-Lex displays 2466

results on Legislation and wine subject, of

which 2120 regulations and 12 directives. If

the search is refined by author (Council of

the European Union) and regarding onl y

regulations the result is 547

3

. When search

140 Lex ET Scientia International Journal

LESIJ NO. XXV, VOL. 2/2018

for the subject matter “wine” in the EU case

law, in the form of Judgments, the number

of results is 120. This paper is, accordingly,

only a survey of the case law, based on an

ample specialized literature.

The present paper will consider only

some of the most relevant judgements of the

Court of Justice of European Union

regarding wine. Coincidentally or not many

of these cases are also landmark decisions,

shaping the EU law. What we find

remarkable is the relevance and impact of

the wine cases over different fields of EU

law. The purpose of this paper is to present

this variety of EU la w areas enriched

through the Court wine judgments:

intellectual property (Capitol 2),

fundamental rights ( Capitol 3), EU legal

order (Capitol 4), external relations (Capitol

5), fiscal barrier to trade (Capitol 6) and

public health (Capitol 7).

2. Intellectual property

2.1. Protection of protected

designations of origin

The EU legislation for quality wine

consists of two types of classificatio n:

Protected Denomination of Origin (PDO)

regarding “quality wines produced in a

specified region” and Protected

Geographical Indication (PGI ) regarding

“quality wines with geographical

indication”. In the specific case of the wine

industry, protection by origin plays an

imperative role, since it is not only a

‘labeling’ issue, as wine quality is strongly

linked to the place where the grape is

4

Jazmín Muñoz and Sofía Boza, Protection by origin in Chile and the European markets: the case of the wine

sector, SECO/WTI Academic Cooperation Project, Working Paper No. 14/2017,

https://www.wti.org/media/filer_public/8d/23/8d234fa5-d456-483f-8def-79ea8009392d/munozbozasecowp.pdf.

5

Judgment of 20 December 2017, Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd, Case C-393/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:991.

6

https://www.bardehle.com/ip-news-knowledge/ip-news/news-detail/court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-

champagne-sorbet-does-not-infringe-champagne-if-the-sorb.html.

harvested in terms of the terroir of the

vineyard

4

.

The Court had occasion to define the

concepts related to protected designations

of origin in many cases.

In a recent judgement of 20 th

December 2017, Champagner Sorbet

5

, the

Court held that a sorbet may be sold under

the name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ if it has, as

one of its essential character istics, a taste

attributable primarily to champagne. If that

is the case, that product name does not take

undue advantage of the protected

designation of origin ‘Champagne’.

At the end of 2012, Aldi, a company

distributing, in ter alia, foodstuffs, began to

sell a frozen prod uct, distributed under the

name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ and contained,

among its ingredients, 12% champagne.

Taking the view t hat the distribution of that

product under that name constituted an

infringement of the PDO ‘Champagne’, the

Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de

Champagne, an association of champagne

producers, brought proceedings before the

Landgericht München.

In this respect, the CJEU, first of all,

rejected the position of the Comité that the

protection granted under these provisions

was absolute. The Court stated that the use

of a protected designation of origin as part of

the name under which is sold a foodstuff that

does not correspond to the prod uct

specifications for that designation but

contains an ingredient which does

correspond to those specifications cannot be

regarded, in itself, as an unfair use and,

therefore, as a u se against which protected

designations of origin are p rotected in all

circumstances by virtue of the applicable

provisions of EU law

6

. It is true that the use