Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 10 July 2002 by Commune de Champagne and Others against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-212/02)

    (Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 July 2002 by Commune de Champagne and Others, Canton de Vaud (Switzerland), represented by Denis Waelbroeck, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul Article 1 of Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom Decision of the Council and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation in so far as the Council and the Commission thereby approved Article 5(8) of Title II of Annex 7 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Trade in Agricultural Products ("the Champagne Clause");

(in so far as necessary, annul that decision inasmuch as the Council and the Commission approved the other articles of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Trade in Agricultural Products, as well as the Agreement on Mutual Recognition in Relation to Conformity Assessment between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation, the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Certain Aspects of Government Procurement, the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation between the European Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Carriage of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road, the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport, the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part;

(declare that the European Community, as represented by the Council and the European Commission, is liable and order the defendants to compensate in full the applicant wine growers for all damage arising from the "Champagne Clause";

(order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are, on the one hand, owners of vineyards in the municipality of Champagne, in the canton of Vaud in Switzerland and, on the other, acting in defence of the interests of those wine growers.

By the contested decision, the Council and the Commission approved seven bilateral agreements between the Community and the Swiss Confederation; one of those agreements concerns agricultural trade. One of the annexes to that agreement includes a provision prohibiting use of the name "Champagne" for wine originating in the canton of Vaud.

In support of their arguments, the applicants allege, first, breach of general principles of law including right to their identity, to property and to the freedom to pursue professional activities. The word "Champagne" is also protected in Swiss law, where it is an appellation communale d'origine contrôlée (registered municipal designation of origin). Moreover, the name "Champagne" has been used in the production of wine in the area for many years and is thus the industrial and commercial property of the applicants.

Furthermore, a total ban on the use by the applicants of the name "Champagne" does not observe the principle of proportionality. The applicants point out that the wine they produce is a non-sparkling wine which does not compete with French champagne. There is therefore no likelihood of confusion. In addition, there are less restrictive ways in which to achieve the same objective, such as by indicating the country of origin on the label.

____________