Opinion of Mr Advocate General VerLoren van Themaat delivered on 11 December 1984

1 Translated from the Dutch.

2 For the full text of the reply I would refer to Annex 5 to the application. The most important part of that reply reads as follows: The prohibition laid down in Article 2 (4) [of Regulation No 997/81] extends solely to those terms that are expressly mentioned therein. That follows, first, from the wording of the paragraph in question (the following terms) and in addition from the eighth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 997/81, which envisages the prohibition of identical, not similar, German designations. Consequently, translation of the relevant Hungarian term by spätgelesen is not contrary to the aforementioned provision. Furthermore, there is no danger of the consumer's being misled as to the origin or type of the wine, which would lead to the term spätgelesen being impermissible under Article 43 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/79 ... Since Article 28 (1) (d) of Regulation No 355/79 provides that the third country of origin must be stated on the labelling, the consumer can distinguish between a Hungarian wine made from spätgelesen grapes and a German or Austrian Spätlese.