96 WINE LAW time of accession and that the adoption of the Delegated Regulation was postponed solely pending a negotiated solution, the Commission also devised a transitional solution: Croatian wines with the PDO “Hrvatska Istra” produced before the entry into force of the Delegated Regulation may continue to be marketed until stocks are exhausted, even if they do not comply with the new labelling conditions52. 5.3. Action for annulment Slovenia brought an action against the European Commission before the EU’s General Court, requesting that the Delegated Regulation be annulled. In support of its action, Slovenia raised eight grounds of appeal, inter alia, having regard to the retroactive effect of the contested regulation, pleas alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 100(3) of Regulation No 1308/2013 – which is the legal basis of the contested regulation – and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations53. On 9 September 2020, the General Court delivered its judgment, dismissing Slovenia’s application. Regarding the legal basis of the contested regulation, the Court found that the Commission had indeed applied the provisions of Regulation No 1308/2013 retroactively, but did not overstep its powers by doing so, since a similar provision existed in Regulation No 1234/2007, which was in force and applicable on the date of the accession of Croatia to the European Union. Regarding the argument that the Commission failed to have regard to the principles of legal certainty, the respect for acquired rights and the protection of legitimate expectations by giving retroactive effect to the contested regulation, the Court found that the contested regulation pursued an objective in the public interest, which was to protect the legal labelling practices in Croatia before its entry in the EU and to resolve the conflict between those practices and the protection of the Slovenian PDO “Teran”. The Commission was not able to adopt the contested regulation before the date of Croatia’s accession and had to assess the existence of specific labelling practices at the time of the accession, which made it necessary for the Regulation to be given retroactive effect. According to the Court, Slovenia had not established that the extent and details of the contested regulation’s retroactive effect had infringed the legitimate 52 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1353, recital 8. 53 General Court of the EU Press Release No 101/20.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==