Luxembourg, 11/12/2000 (Agence Europe) - In its Guimont ruling, the European Court of Justice considers that the French 1988 legislation reserving the name "emmenthal" solely for cheese made with a rind is contrary to the principle of the free movement of goods; this legislation impedes intra-Community trade as the manufacturers of emmenthal without rind of other Member States are obliged to provide for this cheese being made with rind for the French market. According to the Court, an emmenthal without rind has the right to be called "emmenthal" as it has the same composition, the rind only appearing at the refining stage of the cheese. If France considers that this non-essential difference has to be brought to the attention of consumers, it may demand that importers label their products adequately, it concludes.
The Court is thus responding to the police court of Belley (France) that must rule on the fate of one of the directors of a French dairy firm, Argis. Jean-Pierre Guimont is being prosecuted for having marketed several hundred rounds of emmenthal without rind in France. Before ruling, the police court had asked the European Court in Luxembourg whether or not the French legislation was contrary to the principle of the free movement of goods (Article 28 of the Treaty, former Article 30). The Court responds affirmatively.
During the trial, the French and Danish Governments had said that, in their opinions, the legislation in question being French, and the director of the dairy being of French nationality, the situation was purely internal (i.e., Franco-French) and European law could not intervene. The Court took note of this "internal" situation but, true to its case law (Smanor" ruling of 1988) took account of the case of a potential importer of emmenthal without rind who, if they wanted to import into France, would be impeded as they would have to provide for a special manufacturing process for the French market.
Legal experts refer to the importance of this ruling, as, for the first time, the Court alludes to the way in which the main protagonist in this type of case (in this case, Jean Pierre Guimont) could be treated. Thanks to his being case taken before the European Court, he has had borders opened to importers of other Member States without apparent benefit for himself; only importers may import cheeses without rind, French cheese makers remaining subject to the French legislation of 1988.
The Court recalls that Member States have the right (but not the obligation) to treat nationals in the same way as manufacturers of other Member states if they consider that the latter are better off due to European law.
This "inverse" equality may occur on a case by case basis or as a matter of principle, as in Austria where it is has been recognised that an Austrian cannot be treated less well than a national of another Member State. In France, it would seem difficult to gather French law on the subject. But in the case of tender wheat pasta (a Court ruling opened the French market to tender wheat pasta manufactured in Germany) it seems that the French courts have treated manufacturers, French and foreign, in the same manner: all could now manufacture both durum pasta and tender wheat pasta (as long as appropriately labeled).
This legal subtlety no doubt explains why following the pronouncement of the ruling, the Argis dairy declared itself satisfied with the Court's decision (it would anticipate an alignment of all manufacturers), whereas one of its rivals, the cheese group Entremont, placed emphasis on the fact that the Court has not ruled on national production but only opened the door to importers of cheese without rind manufactured abroad.