Order — ECLI:EU:C:2002:62
Date: 2002-01-30
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Concepts: Applications by natural or legal persons;Protection of geographical ascriptions and registered designations of origin;Right to a judicial remedy
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: France

Summary of the Order 
1. 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 — Inadmissible 
(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 1338/2000) 
I - 1179 
SUMMARY — CASE C-151/01 P 
2. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of geographical indications and 
designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation 
No 2081/92 — Procedure for objecting to an application for registration — Right 
to an effective judicial remedy — Breach — None 
(Council Regulation No 2081/92, Art. 7) 
1. A natural or legal person can claim to 
be individually concerned by a provi­
sion which, by its very nature and 
scope is legislative in character only if 
that provision adversely affects it 
because of certain attributes which 
are peculiar to it or factual circum­
stances that differentiate it from all 
other persons. In this case Regulation 
No 1338/2000 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 indi­
cations provided for in Regulation 
No 2081/92 only concerns the appel­
lant owing to its objective status as an 
economic operator producing ducks 
for foie gras in the geographical area, 
as defined in the specification attached 
to the application for registration, and 
marketing the goods produced. That is 
an economic activity that, at any point 
in time, may be carried out by any 
undertaking. 
The fact that, at the time of adoption of 
Regulation No 1338/2000, the appel­
lant was in a situation in which it had 
to adjust its production structure in 
order to fulfil the said conditions is not 
sufficient for it to be individually con­
cerned in a manner analogous to that 
of the addressee of a measure. First, 
even on the supposition that the Com­
mission, when adopting Regulation 
No 1338/2000, ought to have taken 
into account, under a specific provision 
of Regulation No 2081/92, the con­
sequences that the measure entailed for 
certain individuals including the appel­
lant, such a constraint would not have 
discharged the latter from the obli­
gation of proving that it had been 
adversely affected by Regulation 
No 1338/2000 by virtue of factual 
circumstances differentiating it from 
all other persons. On the other hand, 
the adoption of a production structure 
compatible with the maximum limits 
for duck production provided for in the 
specification attached to the appli­
cation for registration in question 
applies to all economic operators wish­
ing to market duck products by using 
the protected geographical indication 
'Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest'. 
(see paras 33-37) 
I - 1180 
LA CONQUESTE v COMMISSION 
2. The procedure for objecting to a regis­
tration established by Article 7 of 
Regulation No 2081/92 on the pro­
tection of geographical indications and 
designations of origin for agricultural 
products and foodstuffs is not intended 
to deal with objections between the 
competent authority of a Member State 
which has applied for registration of a 
name and a natural or legal person 
resident or established in that Member 
State. This interpretation of Article 7 of 
Regulation No 2081/92 is not contrary 
to the right of any person to secure 
judicial redress, as safeguarded by 
Community law as a general principle 
flowing from the constitutional tradi­
tions common to the Member States 
and enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of 
the European Convention on Human 
Rights. In fact, in accordance with that 
general principle of Community law, it 
is for the national courts to rule on the 
legality of an application for regis­
tration of a name introduced by the 
competent authority of a Member State 
to the Commission, in the same cir­
cumstances as those applicable to all 
definitive measures which, having been 
taken by the same national authority, 
threaten adversely to affect third par­
ties' rights under Community law and, 
consequently, to regard an action to 
that end as admissible even if no 
provision is made for such a case in 
the internal rules of procedure. 
(see paras 45-47) 
I - 1181