# C_2015026EN.01001501.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/15

---

Appeal brought on 17 November 2014 by Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-112/11 Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission

(Case C-517/14 P)

(2015/C 026/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. (represented by: M. Loschelder and V. Schoene, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the order under appeal and annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1121/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)] (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order under appeal and annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1121/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)] (1);

1

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred by the appellant in the direct action and in the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred by the appellant in the direct action and in the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: The General Court considers the appellant to have no legal interest in bringing proceedings, since the regulation at issue contains a clarification to the effect that ‘Edam’ is generic. The relevant wording in the registration regulation is, however, merely tautological. The annulment of the registration regulation would therefore, contrary to the view taken by the General Court, give the members an advantage that would justify a legal interest in bringing proceedings. For that reason, the action is admissible. It is also, for the same reason, well founded, as the clarification was authorised by the Netherlands applicants. The Commission therefore erred in nevertheless failing to provide that clarification.

First ground of appeal:

Second ground of appeal: The appellant stated that its members had, in the past, supplied milk to the Netherlands, which could be, and probably was, processed there into Gouda or Edam. The General Court did not infer from this that there was any legal interest in bringing proceedings. In fact, that submission was factually incorrect. The General Court thus distorted the facts of the case, as the submission is correct. Furthermore, according to the General Court, the appellant had not raised its objection or brought its action on behalf of ‘milk producers’. This too is a distortion of the facts, since the objection was made on behalf of the appellant’s members, in so far as they process milk (the milk sold into the Netherlands being processed milk) and market milk or cheese.

Second ground of appeal:

Third ground of appeal: The General Court considers that the dismissal of the objection does not establish a legal interest in bringing proceedings on the part of the appellant itself. This is because the objection was, in legal terms, not made by the appellant but by the Federal Republic of Germany. This does not correspond to the legal position under basic Regulation No 510/2006 (2), nor, contrary to the view taken by the General Court, has that question yet been determined with regard to the basic Regulation. There are differences between basic Regulation No 510/2006 and its predecessor, Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3) , which the General Court failed to take into account and which mean that certainly under the basic regulation, objectors such as the appellant assert their own right to object.

Third ground of appeal:

2

3

Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court rejects the appellant’s submission that the EU’s blue PGI label gives Netherlands producers a competitive advantage over the appellant’s members. This is not correct. The competitive advantage exists, and establishes a legal interest on the part of the appellant’s members in bringing proceedings to have the registration regulation annulled.

Fourth ground of appeal:

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 317, p. 14.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

2

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).

3

---