0

In a spectacular decision, a judge of the Austrian wine capital o Krems, has quashed a mandatory injunction of the Wachau vintner's association Vinea Wachau, to which belongs the majority of producers of this famous wine-growing area, against one of its former members. Franz Josef Gritsch, who had been expelled of the association some time ago, should, so the request formulated by Vinea's board, no longer have the right to use the Vinea-owned quality designations Smaragd, Federspiel and Steinfeder on the labels of his wines.

The judge obviously did not agree and dismissed the request. She argued that the three designations are so strongly linked to the brand image of the entire area and its wines that it could not be prohibited to non-members of the Vinea association to use them - provided they fulfilled the production rules which they imply. Otherwise it could mean that Gritsch, who had labelled his wines according to the Vinea rules for decades, ran into serious economic troubles. The judgement, however, is not yet legally binding and the Vinea board has already announced it would appeal against it.

At the same time, the expulsion of Franz Josef Gritsch itself is still pending, as the winemaker has sued the association to restore his membership. According to him he was expelled only because he had publicly critizised the board, criticism which was interpreted by the latter as damaging the entire association and thus justifying the expulsion. The interesting question raised by the affair is, whether such a criticism, be it justified or not, should be allowed to have such fundamental economic consequences for the critic, and if this is compatible whith our understanding of democracy.