In a judgment handed down on Wednesday 12 July (Case T-34/22), the General Court of the European Union has ruled that the European Commission has a margin of independent discretion to verify that an application for the registration of a PGI name meets the eligibility conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
In France, the union that holds the specifications for three PDOs (‘Jambon sec de Corse’, ‘Lonzo de Corse’ and ‘Coppa de Corse’) is contesting the application by the Consortium des Charcutiers Corses to register the PGI names ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’, ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’ and ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’, arguing that this would create confusion in the minds of consumers.
The Conseil d’Etat (Council of State, France) rejected the application by the union holding the specifications for the three PDOs, and the Commission agreed, refusing to register the three PGI names (Implementing Decision 2021/1879). It considered that it was common knowledge that Corsica was typically referred to as the ‘Île de Beauté’. The Consortium des Charcutiers Corses appealed this decision before the EU General Court.
In its judgment, the General Court found in favour of the Commission, ruling that it had not exceeded its powers.
On the basis of a combined reading of Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation 1151/2012, the General Court considers in particular that to allow the registration of a PGI when it would be evocative of a PDO already registered would render ineffective the protection enjoyed by a PDO.
The European Court has ruled that, in order to analyse the compliance of names with the conditions set out in the regulation, the Commission must carry out a thorough examination of a registration application to ensure that it contains no manifest errors and that it takes account of EU law and the interests of stakeholders outside the Member State of application.
The General Court emphasised that the Commission has a margin of discretion during the process of registering a name. At the first stage, when the documents constituting a file are collected, this margin is limited or even non-existent (Case T-43/15). On the other hand, the Commission has a margin of independent discretion when deciding whether to register a name as a PDO or PGI.
Furthermore, the General Court adds, an infringement of res judicata cannot be relied on to call into question the Commission’s independent assessment of those conditions of eligibility.
View the General Court’s judgment (in French): https://aeur.eu/f/80t (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)