On Wednesday 16 November, Deputy Ambassadors of the EU Member States supported the compromise proposal submitted by the Czech Presidency of the EU Council for a political agreement (general approach) on geographical indications relating to craft and industrial products.
According to our information, almost all of the delegations took to the floor. One of the main issues – which we were told was raised in particular by the Nordic delegations – pertained to the article on the modalities of the control system that was based on risk analysis, which has been greatly simplified.
At the technical level, some delegations were of the opinion that this obligation incumbent upon public authorities should be lightened; others believed, on the contrary, that any further lightening would undermine the protection offered by the new system of geographical indications. The Nordic countries have never been particularly in favour of the establishment of geographical indications for craft and industrial products, unlike France, Portugal and Italy in particular (16 Member States protect their traditional products - see EUROPE 12932/1).
Finally, the Presidency created a new article (46c), which, according to the document obtained by EUROPE, essentially says that the authorities must monitor the use of geographical indications in the market using a risk-based analysis, but also on the basis of producer notifications for those products with geographical indications, “if available”.
The article further states that, where necessary, these authorities must take “appropriate” administrative and judicial measures to prevent or stop the use of names on protected goods or services.
The other issue still being discussed by the same delegations at the meeting was the question of derogations from the national registration phase (Article 15) for those Member States that do not have any arrangements in place to protect their traditional products. The original text provides for a series of constraints and criteria to qualify for this derogation.
According to the Presidency’s document, some delegations asked for this derogation to be possible on the basis of a simple request made by the Member State in question. However, since direct registration is supposed to be an exception, the Presidency continued to say, “the Presidency compromise text maintains the concept of the Commission proposal to provide for derogation only under specific conditions and, for legal certainty, on the basis of a Commission decision”.
In the end, Member States agreed to all of the Presidency’s proposals, according to two diplomatic sources. Luxembourg reportedly submitted a proposal that introduced a large number of flexibilities, but it received very little support.
The general approach should be formally adopted by Member States at the Competitiveness Council in early December. As for the European Parliament, negotiations are just beginning in the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI). The Commission is expected to decide upon its position in February 2023, a parliamentary source told us.
To consult the Czech Presidency’s compromise: https://aeur.eu/f/43d (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)