Reino de Bélgica contra Reino de España.
Jurisdiction | European Union |
ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:2000:244 |
Docket Number | C-388/95 |
Date | 16 May 2000 |
Celex Number | 61995CJ0388 |
Procedure Type | Recours en constatation de manquement - non fondé |
Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
Judgment of the Court of 16 May 2000. - Kingdom of Belgium v Kingdom of Spain. - Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC) - Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 - Quality wines produced in a specified region - Designations of origin - Obligation to bottle in the region of production - Justification - Consequences of an earlier judgment giving a preliminary ruling - Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC). - Case C-388/95.
European Court reports 2000 Page I-03123
Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions of exports - Measures having equivalent effect - National rules requiring bottling in the region of production for wines bearing a designation of origin - Justification - Protection of industrial and commercial property - Condition - Measure that is necessary and proportionate and capable of upholding the considerable reputation of wines bearing a designation of origin
(EC Treaty, Arts 34 and 36 (now, after amendment, Arts 29 EC and 30 EC); Council Regulation No 823/87, Art. 18)
Summary
$$National rules applicable to wines bearing a designation of origin which make the use of the name of the production region conditional upon bottling in that region constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on exports within the meaning of Article 34 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC), since they have the effect of specifically restricting patterns of exports of wine eligible to bear the designation of origin and thereby of establishing a difference of treatment between trade within a Member State and its export trade.
They cannot be rendered lawful by Article 18 of Regulation No 823/87, which, for those types of wine, authorises the Member States, taking into account fair and traditional practices, to impose more stringent conditions of movement than those imposed by that regulation, since that article cannot be interpreted as authorising the Member States to derogate from the Treaty rules on the free movement of goods.
However, the requirement of bottling in the region of production, whose aim is to preserve the considerable reputation of the wine bearing the designation of origin by strengthening control over its particular characteristics and its quality, is justified as a measure protecting the designation of origin which may be used by all the wine producers in that region and is of decisive importance to them, and it must be regarded as being in conformity with Community law despite its restrictive effects on trade, since it constitutes a necessary and proportionate means of attaining the objective pursued in that there are no less restrictive alternative measures capable of attaining it.
( see paras 41-43, 45, 59, 75-76 )
PartiesIn Case C-388/95,
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan Devadder, General Adviser in the Legal Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins,
applicant,
supported by
Kingdom of Denmark, represented by P. Biering, Head of Division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Danish Embassy, 4 Boulevard Royal,
by
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by M. Fierstra and J. van den Oosterkamp, Deputy Legal Advisers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue C.M. Spoo,
by
Republic of Finland, represented by H. Rotkirch, Ambassador and Head of the Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and T. Pynnä and K. Castrén, Legislative Adviser and Assistant, respectively, in that ministry, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Finnish Embassy, 2 Rue Heinrich Heine,
and by
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by S. Ridley, of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, and by E. Sharpston, Barrister, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard Roosevelt,
interveners,
v
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais,
defendant,
supported by
Italian Republic, represented by Professor U. Leanza, Head of the Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by I.M. Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde,
by
Portuguese Republic, represented by L. Fernandes, Director of the Legal Service of the European Communities Directorate-General in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Â. Cortesão Seiça Neves, a lawyer in the same service, and L. Bigotte Chorão, an adviser in the Centre for Legal Studies of the Office of the President of the Council of Ministers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allée Scheffer,
and by
Commission of the European Communities, represented by J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. van Lier, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
interveners,
APPLICATION for a declaration that, by maintaining in force Real Decreto 157/1988, por el que se establece la normativa a que deben ajustarse las denominaciones de origen y las denominaciones de origen calificadas de vinos y sus respectivos Reglamentos (Royal Decree No 157/88 laying down the rules governing designations of origin and controlled designations of origin for wines and regulations implementing it, BOE No 47 of 24 February 1988, p. 5864)) and in particular Article 19(1)(b) thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC), as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgment of 9 June 1992 in Case C-47/90 Delhaize v Promalvin [1992] ECR I-3669, and Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC),
THE COURT,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate General: A. Saggio,
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 21 October 1998, at which the Kingdom of Belgium was represented by J. Devadder, the Kingdom of Spain by R. Silva de Lapuerta, the Kingdom of Denmark by J. Molde, Head of Division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, the Italian Republic by I.M. Braguglia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands by M. Fierstra, the Portuguese Republic by L. Fernandes and L. Bigotte Chorão, the Republic of Finland by T. Pynnä, the United Kingdom by E. Sharpston, assisted by P. Goodband, expert, and the Commission by J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. van Lier, assisted by A. Bertrand, Lecturer at the University of Bordeaux II,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 25 March 1999,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 13 December 1995, the Kingdom of Belgium brought an action under Article 170 of the EC Treaty (now Article 227 EC) for a declaration that, by maintaining in force Real Decreto 157/1988, por el que se establece la normativa a que deben ajustarse las denominaciones de origen y las denominaciones de origen calificadas de vinos y sus respectivos Reglamentos (Royal Decree No 157/88 laying down the rules governing designations of origin and controlled designations of origin for wines and regulations implementing it, BOE No 47 of 24 February 1988, p. 5864, hereinafter Decree No 157/88) and in particular Article 19(1)(b) thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC), as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgment of 9 June 1992 in Case C-47/90 Delhaize v Promalvin [1992] ECR I-3669, and Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC).
The Spanish legislation in question
2 Ley 25/1970, Estatuto del la Viña, del Vino y los Alcoholes (Spanish Law laying down the basic rules concerning vines, wines and spirits, hereinafter Law No 25/70) and Decree No 157/88 lay down the conditions under which wine can be granted a denominación de origen (designation of origin) or, if certain additional conditions are complied with, a denominación de origen calificada (controlled designation of origin).
3 Under Articles 84 and 85 of Law No 25/70, the Minister for Agriculture may, at the request of wine growers and producers or on his own initiative, establish a designación de origen. A Consejo Regulador de la denominación de origen (Governing Council for designations of origin) is then set up. Under Article 87 et seq. of Law No 25/70 the Consejo Regulador, composed for the most part of representatives of the wine growing sector, is authorised, subject to approval by the Minister of Agriculture, to issue rules applicable to wines bearing a denominación de origen and also has the task of providing guidance for, overseeing and monitoring the production, preparation and quality of such wines, safeguarding the prestige of the designation on domestic and foreign markets and taking proceedings in respect of any unlawful use of the designation.
4 Article 86 of Law No 25/70 authorises the Minister for Agriculture, on a proposal from a Consejo Regulador, to grant the designation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caseificio Cirigliana Srl and Others v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali and Others.
...by the aim of preserving the considerable reputation of a PDO product (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 May 2000, Belgium v Spain, C‑388/95, EU:C:2000:244, paragraphs 72 and 75). 43 Regarding whether those rules are necessary and proportionate in the light of the aim pursued, the Italian......
-
Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.
...la sentencia Gourmet Classic, citada en la nota 6. 38 – Véase, a este respecto, la sentencia de 16 de mayo de 2000, Bélgica/España (Rioja) (C‑388/95, Rec. p. I‑3123), especialmente apartados 51 y 52. 39 – Conclusiones de la Abogado General Trstenjak presentadas el 28 de marzo de 2007 en el ......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Richard de la Tour delivered on 7 September 2023.
...4 V., in particolare, sentenze del 4 ottobre 1979, Francia/Regno Unito (141/78, EU:C:1979:225); del 16 maggio 2000, Belgio/Spagna (C‑388/95, EU:C:2000:244); del 12 settembre 2006, Spagna/Regno Unito (C‑145/04, EU:C:2006:543); del 16 ottobre 2012, Ungheria/Slovacchia (C‑364/10, EU:C:2012:630......
-
Slovenia v Croatia
...see, in particular, judgments of 4 October 1979, France v. United Kingdom (141/78, EU: C:1979:225); of 16 May 2000, Belgium v. Spain (C-388/95, EU:C:2000:244); of 12 September 2006, Spain v. United Kingdom (C-145/04, EU:C:2006:543); of 16 October 2012, Hungary v. Slovakia (C-364/10, EU:C:20......
-
Slovenia v Croatia
...see, in particular, judgments of 4 October 1979, France v. United Kingdom (141/78, EU: C:1979:225); of 16 May 2000, Belgium v. Spain (C-388/95, EU:C:2000:244); of 12 September 2006, Spain v. United Kingdom (C-145/04, EU:C:2006:543); of 16 October 2012, Hungary v. Slovakia (C-364/10, EU:C:20......
-
The Queen v The Competition Commission, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and The Director General of Fair Trading, ex parte Milk Marque Ltd and National Farmers' Union.
...C-47/90 Delhaize et le Lion [1992] ECR I-3669, paragraph 12; Case C-203/96 Dusseldorp and Others [1998] ECR I-4075, paragraph 40; and Case C-388/95 Belgium v Spain [2000] ECR I-3123, paragraph 35 – Case 229/83 Leclerc v Au blé vert [1985] ECR 1. 36 – Ibid., paragraph 27. 37 – Cited in footn......
-
Kakavetsos-Fragkopoulos AE Epexergasias kai Emporias Stafidas v Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Korinthias.
...1984, Jongeneel Kaas e.a. (237/82, Rec. p. 483, point 22); Delhaize et Le Lion, précité (point 12); du 16 mai 2000, Belgique/Espagne (C-388/95, Rec. p. I-3123, point 41); du 23 mai 2000, Sydhavnens Sten & Grus (C-209/98, Rec. p. I-3743, point 24); du 20 mai 2003, Consorzio del Prosciutto di......
-
Caseificio Cirigliana Srl and Others v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali and Others.
...by the aim of preserving the considerable reputation of a PDO product (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 May 2000, Belgium v Spain, C‑388/95, EU:C:2000:244, paragraphs 72 and 75). 43 Regarding whether those rules are necessary and proportionate in the light of the aim pursued, the Italian......
-
La liberalización del comercio de servicios en la Unión Europea: ¿un modelo de referencia para el Gasts?
...(15/79, Rec. p. 3409); de 9 de julio de 1992, Delhaize et Le Lion (C-47/90, Rec. p. I-3669): y de 16 de mayo de 2000, Bélgica /España (C388/95, aún no publicada en la 67 Sentencia Reisebüro Broede, cit., apartado 27. 68 Sentencia de 21 de octubre de 1999, Zenatti (C-67/98, aún no publicada ......
-
Jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas relativa a las denominaciones de origen
...Community under Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty?, Sweet & Maxwell, Londres, 2003, pág. 209). [6] De 16 de mayo de 2000, asunto C-388/95, RJTJ pág. I-3123 (véanse sobre este fallo: BIANCHI, "In vitro veritas: la mise en bouteille obligatoire des vins de qualité dans la région de produ......