158 WINE LAW In addition to all these issues, market behaviour is relevant as well, not only according to the principles of correctness or the behaviour sanctioned in the various rules governing agri-food activity but also with the possibility that the operators themselves assume the ethical commitment not to cause deception or confusion in the market or among consumers, on the basis of the good practices that the Regulatory Board itself may be promote. This would respect the recognition of the practice in agri-food legislation and the exclusive right of operators over their brands, while providing more effective protection for geographical indications, especially for the one with which the shared brand is originally associated. II. THE LABELLING OF WINE PRODUCTS As a preliminary aspect, before analysing the main issue raised in this work, it is necessary to refer to the European and national regulations governing the labelling of wine products. Wine is a food product5 and, as such, it is subject to the labelling requirements determined by the competent authorities at the European or national levels. As a general regulation, Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers6 should be mentioned. In addition to the elements that make up the so-called “food information” to be provided to the consumer, other issues, such as fair information practices in the field of food information, 5 Article 2(2)(e) of Law 24/2003 of 10 July 2003 on Vine and Wine defines it as “the natural foodstuff obtained exclusively by total or partial alcoholic fermentation of fresh grapes, whether or not crushed, or of grape must”. In relation to this notion, see the recent ruling of the Constitutional Court (74/2021, 18 March 2021), which resolves the appeal of unconstitutionality 440-2020, filed by the President of the Government regarding article 19 of the Law of the Parliament of the Canary Islands 6/2019, of 9 April, on agri-food quality. The competences over the organisation of the economy are the object of controversy, declaring the unconstitutionality and nullity of article 19 of the autonomous provision, as it infringes the exclusive competence that article 149(1) 13 EC attributes to the State in matters of bases and coordination of the general planning of economic activity, since “by authorising the designation “wine” for the marketing of products obtained from the fermentation of fruit other than grapes, it effectively and insurmountable contradicts by way of interpretation these basic provisions, particularly article 2(3), which establishes the exclusive nature of the definitions and prohibits the use of these designations for products that do not strictly conform to the definition contained in this case in article 2(2)(e)”. 6 Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (provision of food information to consumers).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==