# C_2014112EN.01004601.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/46 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 17 January 2014 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission

(Case T-49/14)

2014/C 112/59

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung, M. Teworte-Vey, A. Renvert and J. Saatkamp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Decision of 14 November 2013 concerning the rejection of a request to cancel a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski (PGI)) (notified under document C(2013) 7626). |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an incorrect legal basis
—
The applicant claims that the defendant based the contested decision, unlawfully, on the new version of Regulation (EU) 1151/2012( 1 ) applicable when the decision was adopted rather than on the older version Regulation (EC) No 510/2006( 2 ) applicable at the time of the applicant’s request. The defendant thereby infringed the principle expressed by the maxim ‘tempus regit actum’. —
The applicant also argues that the request to cancel the entry is admissible and well founded under Regulation No 510/2006. It states in this context inter alia that there are two reasons for the cancellation (the indication at issue is a generic name within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006; the geographical area Silesia is incorrectly defined in the specification of the registration) within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 510/2006 and that a divergent interpretation and application of that provision would impinge upon the fundamental rights of bakery businesses in the Federal Republic. | — | The applicant claims that the defendant based the contested decision, unlawfully, on the new version of Regulation (EU) 1151/2012( 1 ) applicable when the decision was adopted rather than on the older version Regulation (EC) No 510/2006( 2 ) applicable at the time of the applicant’s request. The defendant thereby infringed the principle expressed by the maxim ‘tempus regit actum’. | — | The applicant also argues that the request to cancel the entry is admissible and well founded under Regulation No 510/2006. It states in this context inter alia that there are two reasons for the cancellation (the indication at issue is a generic name within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006; the geographical area Silesia is incorrectly defined in the specification of the registration) within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 510/2006 and that a divergent interpretation and application of that provision would impinge upon the fundamental rights of bakery businesses in the Federal Republic. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims that the defendant based the contested decision, unlawfully, on the new version of Regulation (EU) 1151/2012( 1 ) applicable when the decision was adopted rather than on the older version Regulation (EC) No 510/2006( 2 ) applicable at the time of the applicant’s request. The defendant thereby infringed the principle expressed by the maxim ‘tempus regit actum’. | | | | |
| — | The applicant also argues that the request to cancel the entry is admissible and well founded under Regulation No 510/2006. It states in this context inter alia that there are two reasons for the cancellation (the indication at issue is a generic name within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006; the geographical area Silesia is incorrectly defined in the specification of the registration) within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 510/2006 and that a divergent interpretation and application of that provision would impinge upon the fundamental rights of bakery businesses in the Federal Republic. | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1151/2012
—
The applicant claims that the request would even be admissible and well founded were it to be assessed on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012. | — | The applicant claims that the request would even be admissible and well founded were it to be assessed on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims that the request would even be admissible and well founded were it to be assessed on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012. | | |

---

( 1 )  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 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).

---