The Court of Justice of the European Union (the EU’s Supreme Court) was asked to determine whether the EU’s internal foodstuffs GI rules apply to products not complying with the product specifications but destined for export rather than the domestic, internal market.
Unlike the Regulations protecting Geographical Indications for wines,[1] spirit drinks[2] and aromatic wines,[3] Regulation 1151/2012 on the protection of Geographical Indications for foodstuffs does not have a specific Article providing that the internal EU rules apply to exports.[4]
Prior to the adoption of Regulation 1151/2012, the Committee of the Regions had recommended inclusion into the law of an Article clearly stating that internal EU GI law on foodstuffs also applied to exports. In addition, the European Parliament had proposed that the European Commission should be given the power to adopt subsidiary law on what steps Member States would have to take to prevent the export to third countries of products not complying with the GI product specifications and the foodstuffs Regulation in general. Despite this, the final text did not include a provision on exports.
In FETA IV,[5] Case C-159/20,[6] the Court of Justice of the European Union was asked to address a claim by the European Commission, which has the competence to ensure that EU law is complied with by each of the EU Member States, that Denmark was failing to stop Danish dairy producers from using the designation ‘feta’ on cheese for export that did not conform to the product specification (production outside the defined GI area and the using different raw materials and method of production, such as, in particular, cows’ rather than sheep and goats’ milk and specific colorants).
[1] Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, as last amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021
[2] Regulation (EU) 2019/787, as last amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1303 of 25 April 2022.
[3] Regulation (EU) No 251/2014, as last amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021.
[4] Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as last amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021.
[5] This is the fourth time the Court of Justice has had to address legal issues in relation to the Greek cheese feta. FETA I, Case C-317/95 concerned the free movement of ‘feta’ from Denmark into Greece and preceded the registration of feta as a PDO (see in particular the opinion of the Advocate General); In FETA II, joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96, the CJEU ruled that the Commission had not examined the factors necessary to determine if feta was, or was not, generic and annulled the registration of feta as a PDO; in FETA III, Cases C-465/02 and C-462/02, the Court held that the Commission had made a legitimate evaluation that the name feta was not generic. See also O’Connor B. and Kireeva I. ’What’s in a name? the ‘feta’ cheese saga’, International Trade Law and Regulation, Vol. 9, 2003, page 110.
[6] Case C-159/20 Commission v Denmark [2022], Judgement of 14 July 2022.
To read the full article, click on the Download button below.