Luxembourg, 12/05/2005 (Agence Europe) - Advocate General Dàmaso Ruiz-Jarabo recommends that the Court should dismiss the applications by Germany and Denmark against registration of the name “feta” as a protected designation of origin (PDO). “The term 'feta' has not become generalised in the Community since it is inextricably associated with a specific foodstuff: the cheese produced in a large area of Greece, using sheep's milk or a mixture of sheep's milk and goat's milk, by the natural and artisanal process of coagulation at normal pressure”, he concluded.
Germany and Denmark consider the term does not meet PDO conditions. The regulation of 14 October 2002 gave 'feta' a PDO designation as a cheese that originates from a substantial part of Greece. They call for feta cheese to be excluded from the PDO register as, they say, the word 'feta' is generic and not a “traditional” name in the sense of the regulation. The advocate general considers the name “feta” is not generic and meets the requirements to be regarded as a traditional name as set out in the regulation. The word “feta” is of Italian origin and was introduced into Greece under Venetian influence. The word became established during the 19th century to describe the traditional white cheese in brine made since ancient times in a large part of that country and in other areas of the Balkans. “Feta” is linked with a large part of Greece both historically and at the present time, the press release from the advocate general continues.
Dàmaso Ruiz-Jarabo also considers that the name “feta” should continue to enjoy PDO designation as the characteristics of feta derive from the Greek surroundings where it is made. Sheep and goats from Thrace and Thessalia are very similar but there are considerable differences between such sheep and goats and Scottish, French and Castilian sheep and goats, he explained. In these conditions, feta is not a generic name to be used by Germans, Danish or French, he concludes.
The advocate-general's conclusions have not been published in full in all the languages. The text is long and, some say, full of historical and literary references ranging from the construction of the temple in Jerusalem with the cedars of Lebanon to the dress in crêpe de Chine worn by the Duchess of Guermantes (Proust) and including the way the Cyclops, Poliphene, produced his cheeses, as well as the olfactory experiences of a character from the novel by Italo Calvino upon entering a shop in Paris.
The Court is expected to rule in the next few months. This is the second time it will do so. On 16 March 1999, in the first “feta” affair, the Court of Justice had cancelled the first 1996 regulation which had included feta in the list of PDO. Cancellation had been for reasons described as reasons of “form” by the Court. One such reason was that the Commission had minimised the importance to be attributed to the situation existing in Member States. In this first case, it was Advocate General Antonio La Pergola who had set out the conclusions on 15 September 1998. He had concluded in favour of the German and Danish arguments that the word “feta” means “slice” in Latin and does not mean that it comes from any given place. Feta, they say, is not a common name. “The term 'feta' has not become generic - It has always been so”, he said. Antonio La Pergola had resumed the conclusions of Dàmaso Juiz Jarabo presented on 24 June 1997 before the Court in the Canadene Cheese Trading case, later removed from the registrar. Advocate General La Pergola had taken from this text what he considered would back up his argument that the term “feta” is generic. He had cited the passage where Advocate General Luiz-Jarabo pointed out that “there is no substantial difference between sheep's and/or goat's milk feta and feta made from cow's milk. The situation in international law, the references in Community legislation and the domestic legislation of all the Member States, except Greece, and the expectations of consumers in all the Member Sates show that feta may be made from sheep's, goat's, or cow's milk without giving rise to differences in the individual varieties of feta”. (See EUROPE 7304).
The Court of Justice, which is not bound by the conclusions of its advocates-general, should choose and decide whether feta is a generic name or whether it should be protected as it is at present.
It is to be noted that, for over ten years now, the European cheese world has been attacking and counter-attacking. In 1996, there were already seven “feta” cases before European courts, three of which were before the Court of Justice and four at the European Court of First Instance. None has come to anything as, since 2002, three cases are in progress before the same court on the same subject. Cases initiated in 2002 were introduced by Alpenhain-Camembert-Werk, the Confédération générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels de Roquefort and by Arla Foods.