Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 27 June 2024.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62023CC0579
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2024:561
• Date: 27 June 2024
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)

Provisional text

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

CAMPOS SÁNCHEZ-BORDONA

delivered on 27 June 2024 (1)

Case C‑579/23 P

Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi – Consortium des Charcutiers Corses,

Charcuterie Fontana,

Costa et fils,

L’Aziana,

Charcuterie Passoni,

Orezza – Charcuterie la Castagniccia,

Salaisons réunies,

Salaisons Joseph Pantaloni,

Antoine Semidei,

L’Atelu Corsu

v

European Commission

(Appeal – Agriculture – Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 – Protection of designations of origin (PDOs) and geographical indications (PGIs) – Rejection of the applications for ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’, ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’ and ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’ – Eligibility of names – Evocation of the prior PDOs ‘Jambon sec de Corse/Prisuttu’, ‘Lonzo de Corse/Lonzu’ and ‘Coppa de Corse/Coppa di Corsica’ – Scope of the Commission’s control of the applications for registration)

1. This appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023, (2) dismissing the action for annulment brought against Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1879, (3) which refused the registration of three protected geographical indications (‘PGIs’).

2. The European Union has a highly developed system of protection for the registered names of agricultural products and foodstuffs. (4) This system has recently been reformed, amended and unified with effect from 13 May 2024 by Regulation (EU) No 2024/1143, (5) which establishes a more unified system for geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products and which repeals Regulation No 1151/2012. That new Regulation No 2024/1143 is not applicable to the present dispute, but its provisions do not substantially differ from those of Regulation No 1151/2012 in respect of the questions referred in this case.

3. Regulation No 1151/2012 establishes a common and centralised system of protection for the entire European Union, be it in relation to protected designations of origin (‘PDOs’) or PGIs.

4. Applications for protection of PGIs are dealt with by means of a composite administrative procedure, involving the national authorities and the European Commission.

5. Until now, the Court of Justice has, principally, dealt with disputes relating to the ‘national’ stage of that procedure. This appeal will allow it examine up to what point the Commission may, in the ‘European’ stage of the procedure, refuse the inclusion in the register (6) of various PGIs previously approved by the French authorities.

I. Legal context: Regulation No 1151/2012

6. Recital 58 states:

‘To ensure that registered names of designations of origin and geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed meet the conditions laid down by this Regulation, applications should be examined by the national authorities of the Member State concerned, in compliance with minimum common provisions, including a national opposition procedure. The Commission should subsequently scrutinise applications to ensure that there are no manifest errors and that Union law and the interests of stakeholders outside the Member State of application have been taken into account.’

7. Article 13 (‘Protection’) states:

‘1. Registered names shall be protected against:

…

(b) any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the products or services is indicated or if the protected name is translated or accompanied by an expression such as “style”, “type”, “method”, “as produced in”, “imitation” or similar, including when those products are used as an ingredient;

…

3. Member States shall take appropriate administrative and judicial steps to prevent or stop the unlawful use of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications, as referred to in paragraph 1, that are produced or marketed in that Member State.

…’

8. Article 49 (‘Application for registration of names’) provides:

‘1. Applications for registration of names under the quality schemes referred to in Article 48 may only be submitted by groups who work with the products with the name to be registered.

…

2. Where the application under the scheme set out in Title II relates to a geographical area in a Member State, or where an application under the scheme set out in Title III is prepared by a group established in a Member State, the application shall be addressed to the authorities of that Member State.

The Member State shall scrutinise the application by appropriate means in order to check that it is justified and meets the conditions of the respective scheme.

3. As part of the scrutiny referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article, the Member State shall initiate a national opposition procedure that ensures adequate publication of the application and that provides for a reasonable period within which any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and established or resident on its territory may lodge an opposition to the application.

The Member State shall examine the admissibility of oppositions received under the scheme set out in Title II in the light of the criteria referred to in Article 10(1), or the admissibility of oppositions received under the scheme set out in Title III in the light of the criteria referred to in Article 21(1).

4. If, after assessment of any opposition received, the Member State considers that the requirements of this Regulation are met, it may take a favourable decision and lodge an application dossier with the Commission. It shall in such case inform the Commission of admissible oppositions received from a natural or legal person that have legally marketed the products in question, using the names concerned continuously for at least five years preceding the date of the publication referred to in paragraph 3.

The Member State shall ensure that its favourable decision is made public and that any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest has an opportunity to appeal.

The Member State shall ensure that the version of the product specification on which its favourable decision is based, is published, and shall provide electronic access to the product specification.

With reference to protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications, the Member State shall also ensure adequate publication of the version of the product specification on which the Commission takes its decision pursuant to Article 50(2).

5. Where the application under the scheme set out in Title II relates to a geographical area in a third country, or where an application under the scheme set out in Title III is prepared by a group established in a third country, the application shall be lodged with the Commission, either directly or via the authorities of the third country concerned.

…’

9. Article 50 (‘Scrutiny by the Commission and publication for opposition’) reads:

‘1. The Commission shall scrutinise by appropriate means any application that it receives pursuant to Article 49, in order to check that it is justified and that it meets the conditions of the respective scheme. This scrutiny should not exceed a period of six months. Where this period is exceeded, the Commission shall indicate in writing to the applicant the reasons for the delay.

The Commission shall, at least each month, make public the list of names for which registration applications have been submitted to it, as well as their date of submission.

…’

10. Article 52 (‘Decision on registration’) states:

‘1. Where, on the basis of the information available to the Commission from the scrutiny carried out pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 50(1), the Commission considers that the conditions for registration are not fulfilled, it shall adopt implementing acts rejecting the application. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 57(2).

2. If the Commission receives no notice of opposition or no admissible reasoned statement of opposition under Article 51, it shall adopt implementing acts, without applying the procedure referred to in Article 57(2), registering the name.

3. If the Commission receives an admissible reasoned statement of opposition, it shall, following the appropriate consultations referred to in Article 51(3), and taking into account the results thereof, either:

(a) if an agreement has been reached, register the name by means of implementing acts adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 57(2), and, if necessary, amend the information published pursuant to Article 50(2) provided such amendments are not substantial; or

(b) if an agreement has not been reached, adopt implementing acts deciding on the registration. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 57(2).

4. Acts of registration and decisions on rejection shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.’

II. Background

11. The background to the dispute is set out in paragraphs 4 to 9 of the judgment under appeal, which I summarise below.

12. The names ‘Jambon sec de Corse’/‘Jambon sec de Corse – Prisuttu’, ‘Lonzo de Corse’/‘Lonzo de Corse – Lonzu’ and ‘Coppa de Corse’/‘Coppa de Corse – Coppa di Corsica’ were registered on 28 May 2014 as PDOs by means of three implementing regulations. (7)

13. In December 2015, the Consortium des Charcutiers Corses lodged seven applications for registration as PGIs with the French national authorities, in accordance with Regulation No 1151/2012. The seven applications concerned the following names: ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’, ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’, ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’, ‘Saucisson sec de l’Île de Beauté’, ‘Pancetta de l’Île de Beauté’, ‘Figatelli de l’Île de Beauté’ and ‘Bulagna de l’Île de Beauté’.

14. On 20 April 2018, the ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (Minister for Agriculture and Food, France) and the ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Minister for the...