Wine Law

26 The relevance of the point in law disputed justifies that in the subsequent claim on appeal before the Second Chamber of the European Court (Case C-56/16 P), which would give rise to the judgement of 14 September 2017 ( Port Charlotte 2 ), two more parties stepped in. The Commission supporting the claimant, the European Office which by that time, had been renamed EUIPO, and Portugal, backing Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto’s position. The court, on the advice of Spanish Advocate General Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona, overturned the judgement by the General Court. In overruling the judgement brought before it, the European Court argues — as had the Advocate General in his 31 — that, although the protection schemes set up by the Regulation governing wine designations and the horizontal Regulation are not identical, they are, indeed, “essentially, the same in nature, since their objectives and characteristics were similar” (section 76). Interestingly, the judgement goes on to verify that the defining elements of both schemes are similar by going over the registration procedure of names and the transitional provisions provided for existing designations already in force on the scheme coming into effect (sections 85 to 94). From this the court infers that “the system of protection provided for by Regulation nº 1234/2007 [currently 1308/2013] is exhaustive in nature, with the result that that regulation precludes the application of a national system of protection for geographical indications that are protected under that regulation” (section 103). 4.2. Internal distribution of powers over designations of origin As this is only relevant in political systems with a high degree of devolution, as it is the case of Spain, I will deal with it fairly briefly. European norms regarding designations of origin, being blanket regulations, do not exhaust, by any means, the scope for regulation. Given the fact that relevant areas concerning design, management, supervision and protection are left for member states to regulate, there will always be the need for supplementary norms from them. In addition, the designation of origin as defined by 31 See specifically sections 63-65 and 72 of his Opinion, presented on 18 May 2017.