Order — ECLI:EU:T:1999:281
Date: 1999-11-09
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Alcohol;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Consumer protection
Concepts: Applications by natural or legal persons
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Application to intervene - decision unnecessary
Origin: France

Summary of the Order 
Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual 
concern to them — Regulation concerning the entry of certain names in the 'Register of 
protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications' — Action 
brought by a producer marketing products under names entered in that register, who 
has lodged with the national authorities an objection to their registration — Inadmissible 
(Arts 226 EC, 230 EC and 249, second para., EC; Council Regulation No 2081/92, 
Art. 7; Commission Regulation No 378/1999) 
II - 3331 
SUMMARY — CASE T-114/99 
An action for annulment — brought by a 
producer of various varieties of cider mar­
keted under various names comprising the 
indication 'Pays d'Auge' — in respect of 
Regulation No 378/1999 supplementing 
the Annex to Regulation No 2400/96 on 
the entry of certain names in the 'Register 
of protected designations of origin and 
protected geographical indications' provi­
ded for in Regulation No 2081/92 in so far 
as it registers the names 'Pays d'Auge/Pays 
d'Auge-Cambremer' as a protected desig­
nation of origin, is inadmissible. 
That legislation is a measure of general 
application within the meaning of the 
second paragraph of Article 249 EC, since, 
in giving all undertakings whose products 
meet the prescribed geographical and qual­
ity requirements the right to market them 
under one of the names in question and in 
refusing that right to undertakings whose 
products do not satisfy those conditions, 
which are identical for all producers, it 
applies to objectively determined situations 
and produces legal effects with respect to 
persons envisaged generally and in the 
abstract. 
Although certain rules which, by virtue of 
their nature and scope, are of a legislative 
character may be of individual concern to 
natural or legal persons, that is not the 
position in this context. The fact that the 
applicant controls a large part of the 
market in question is not in itself enough 
to differentiate it from any other trader 
affected by the contested regulation, and its 
use of the geographical name on which it 
relies does not constitute the exercise of a 
specific right which was acquired at 
national or Community level before the 
adoption of the contested regulation and 
which the regulation affected. 
Also, the fact that the applicant sent a duly 
substantiated statement to the competent 
authority of the Member State in which it is 
established, objecting to the registration of 
the name in question — an objection which 
was not forwarded to the Commission — is 
not sufficient to establish the admissibility 
of its action. 
Under the scheme for registering objections 
established by Regulation No 2081/92, the 
procedural safeguards expressly afforded to 
individuals fall exclusively within the scope 
of responsibility of the Member States and 
do not involve the exercise of any power of 
assessment on the part of the Commission. 
This means that no specific procedural 
safeguards have been established at Com­
munity level for individuals. Even if the 
competent national authority did infringe 
certain of the applicant's procedural rights 
by refusing to forward to the Commission 
the objection which the applicant had 
submitted, it does not follow that this 
action is admissible for that reason alone. 
II - 3332 
CSR PAMPRYL V COMMISSION 
In an action brought under Article 230 EC, 
the Community judicature has no jurisdic­
tion to rule on the lawfulness of a measure 
adopted by a national authority even if the 
measure in question forms part of a Com­
munity decision-making procedure, where 
it clearly follows from the division of 
powers in the field in question between 
the national authorities and the Commu­
nity institutions that the measure adopted 
by the national authority is binding on the 
Community decision-taking authority and 
therefore determines the terms of the Com­
munity decision to be adopted. Accord­
ingly, subject to the possibility of bringing 
proceedings before the Court of Justice 
under Article 226 EC, it is for the national 
courts alone, where appropriate after 
obtaining a preliminary ruling from the 
Court, to rule on the lawfulness of the 
national measure at issue and on the 
possible liability of the Member State if it 
is claimed that the measure has caused loss. 
II - 3333