Wine Law

15 Since Croatia made its request before the date of its accession to the EU, the Commission adopted the delegated regulation with retroactive effect as from the date of the accession, on 1 July 2013. Noting that the use of grape variety name “Teran” when marketing wines on the territory of Croatia was a practice existing at the 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 conditions 52 . 5.3. Action for annulment Slovenia brought an action against the European Commission before the General Court of the EU, 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 expectations 53 . 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 accession to the EU and to resolve the 52 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1353, recital 8. 53 General Court of the EU Press Release No 101/20.