Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2019:873
Date: 2019-10-17
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Foodstuffs;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Consumer protection
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-569/18 — 1 
Case C-569/18 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
11 September 2018 
Referring court: 
Consiglio di Stato (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
12 July 2018 
Applicants at first instance and appellants in the present proceedings: 
Caseificio Cirigliana Srl 
Mail Srl 
Sorì Italia Srl 
Defendants at first instance and respondents in the present proceedings: 
Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali 
Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri 
Ministero della Salute 
  
Subject-matter of the main proceedings 
Variation of Decision No 13103 of the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il 
Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy; ‘TAR Lazio’) of 
19 November 2015, which dismissed the action brought by the present appellants 
against decreto ministeriale no. 76262 del 9 settembre 2014, ‘Modalità per 
l’attuazione delle disposizioni di cui all’art. 4 del decreto legge 24 giugno 2014, n. 
91, recante: “Misure per la sicurezza alimentare e la produzione della Mozzarella 
di Bufala Campana DOP”’ (Ministerial Decree No 76262 of 9 September 2014: 
‘Detailed rules for the implementation of the provisions of Article 4 of Decree 
Law No 91 of 24 June 2014 establishing “Measures on food safety and production 
of PDO ‘Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’”’) (‘DM No. 76262’) 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-569/18 
 
2  
Subject-matter and legal basis of the reference 
Interpretation of EU law pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. 
Question referred 
Should Articles 3, 26, 32, 40 and 41 of the TFEU and Articles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of 
Regulation 1151/2012/EU on the Protected Designation of Origin, which require 
Member States to guarantee both free competition in respect of goods within the 
European Union and protection for quality schemes to support less favoured 
agricultural areas, be interpreted as precluding a restriction being imposed under 
national law (Article 4 of Decree Law No 91 of 24 June 2014, as converted into 
law by Law No 116 of 11 August 2014) on the production of PDO Mozzarella di 
Bufala Campana, which is to be made in factories dedicated exclusively to such 
production, in which the holding and storage of milk originating from farms not 
included in the monitoring system for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana is 
prohibited? 
Main provisions of EU law and EU case-law 
TFEU: Articles 3, 26, 32, 40 and 41. 
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: 
recitals 3, 4, and 18 and Articles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7. 
Judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-108/01 and C-388/95. 
Main national provisions 
Decreto legge 24 giugno 2014, n. 91, convertito con modificazioni dalla Legge 11 
agosto 2014, n. 116 (Decree Law No 91 of 24 June 2014, converted, with 
amendments, into law by Law No 116 of 11 August 2014) Article 4(1) and (3): ‘1. 
PDO “Mozzarella di Bufala Campana”, registered as a protected designation of 
origin (PDO) pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 
1996, shall be produced in an area where only milk originating from farms 
included in the monitoring system for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana is 
processed. In such an area, semi-finished products and other products may be 
produced, provided they are made exclusively from milk originating from farms 
included in the monitoring system for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana. 
Products made partially or exclusively from milk other than that from farms 
included in the monitoring system for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana shall 
be produced in a different area, in accordance with the provisions laid down in 
paragraph 3. 
CASEIFICIO CIRIGLIANA AND OTHERS 
 
3 
3. A decree of the Ministry of Agriculture, Foodstuffs and Forestry, acting 
together with the Minister for Heath, to be adopted within thirty days from the 
date of entry into force of this decree, shall set out detailed rules for 
implementation of the provisions of the third sentence of paragraph 1 and 
paragraph 2, stipulating that the rules governing the separate production of 
products referred to in the last sentence of paragraph 1, shall prohibit all contact, 
including accidental contact, between milk originating from farms included in the 
monitoring system for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana and other milk, as 
well as between PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana and products made from 
other milk, at all stages of processing and packaging’. 
DM No. 76262: Article 1(1): ‘In implementation of the third sentence of 
Article 4(1) of Decree Law No 91 of 24 June 2014, goods made partially or 
exclusively with milk other than that originating from farms included in the 
monitoring system for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana shall be produced in a 
different area, physically separate from the area in which PDO Mozzarella di 
Bufala Campana and products made exclusively with milk originating from farms 
included in the monitoring system for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana are 
produced. The physical separation shall prevent all contact, including accidental 
contact, between milk originating from farms included in the monitoring system 
for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana and other milk, as well as between PDO 
Mozzarella di Bufala Campana and products made from other milk, and, 
accordingly, shall relate to the facilities for storing, moving and processing the 
milk and for packaging the products. Facilities and equipment which do not come 
into contact with the milk and/or products obtained therefrom may be used to 
service production lines situated in different areas.’ 
Brief outline of the facts and the proceedings at first instance 
1 The companies Caseificio Cirigliana, Mail and Sorì Italia produce and sell PDO 
Mozzarella di Bufala Campana, but also ‘non-PDO’ buffalo mozzarella and 
‘mixed’ mozzarella made from cow’s milk and buffalo milk. 
2 In 2014 those companies challenged, before the TAR Lazio, the part of DM No. 
76262 which, in implementation of Article 4(1) and (3) of Decree Law 
No 91/2014, requires that mozzarella and other preparations made with milk or 
derived from milk not originating from farms included in the monitoring system 
for the PDO in question, or made with so-called ‘downgraded’ milk, 1 are to be 
produced in a physical area which is clearly defined and separate from that in 
which PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana is produced. 
 
1  Buffalo milk from the PDO area that has not been processed within 60 days of milking, as 
prescribed by the regulations governing PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana, but rather after 
this period. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-569/18 
 
4  
3 According to the applicants (appellants before this court), ‘the requirement for 
separate premises which may process only buffalo milk originating from the PDO 
area and the consequent prohibition on holding and storing, within such premises, 
raw materials and curds other than buffalo milk and curds obtained solely from 
the processing of milk originating from PDO areas, as well as by-products and 
products obtained from the same raw materials, would in fact preclude, or in any 
case make excessively burdensome, the activity of the many companies which 
process these kinds of products’. The businesses in the PDO sector which intend 
to continue to produce PDO mozzarella would have to make considerable 
investments to equip themselves with separate production lines and separate 
storage, or would have to abandon the production of non-PDO products, such as, 
for example, mozzarella made from a mixture of cow’s milk and buffalo milk. 
4 Thus, the contested provision would ultimately infringe the EU principle of 
diversification, as provided for in Regulation No 1151/2012, which states that its 
main objective is to enhance the value of ‘protected’ products in order to 
complement rural development and agricultural policy, particularly in les favoured 
areas such as the Campania Region. 2 
5 By judgment of 19 November 2015, the TAR Lazio dismissed the action. The 
applicants brought an appeal before the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, 
Italy). 
The essential arguments of the appellants 
6 The appellants raise several complaints concerning constitutionality, invoking, in 
particular, the principles of equality and reasonableness, the safeguarding of 
competition and freedom to conduct business. In their view, companies producing 
PDO buffalo mozzarella have been placed at a disadvantage by comparison with 
other Italian and European companies which produce PDO cheese products in 
respect of which the dedication of production lines to a single type of product is 
not required, or by comparison with other companies producing non-PDO 
mozzarella, since the Italian legislator has not altered the position of those 
companies. In addition, it is clear that the ancillary penalty whereby companies 
infringing the rules may have the factory in question closed for up to 30 days is 
wholly disproportionate. 
7 They also complain that the TAR Lazio did not rule on the alleged infringement of 
the EU principle of diversification. In their opinion, the unavoidable abandonment 
of the production of PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana will (i) profoundly alter 
the mozzarella market and, therefore, the milk market, creating conditions for an 
‘anonymous’ mozzarella with widespread use of milk originating from non-PDO 
areas, produced in EU or non-EU countries, and lower prices, (ii) have, for farms 
in the PDO area, disastrous social consequences as a result of the reduced take-up 
 
2  The region of all three applicants. 
CASEIFICIO CIRIGLIANA AND OTHERS 
 
5 
of milk or take-up at prices which do not cover the usual operating costs and, (iii) 
remove, for cheese factories in Campania, the competitive advantage of the PDO, 
putting them into competition with the dairy system of the Centre-North. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the reference 
8 The Consiglio di Stato notes that, contrary to what the appellants maintain, the 
contested legislation does not require the use of separate premises for the 
production of PDO mozzarella and non-PDO mozzarella; rather it only requires 
separate ‘areas’. 
9 That misinterpretation of the primary legislation does not, however, invalidate the 
relevance of the question raised by the appellants. In fact, even the requirement to 
produce non-PDO buffalo mozzarella in different, separate areas from those used 
for the production of PDO buffalo mozzarella involves investment and, therefore, 
economic sacrifices which could affect free competition between operators. 
10 Certainly, EU law displays a general tendency to enhance the quality of products 
within the framework of the common agricultural policy, in order to promote the 
reputation of those products through, inter alia, the use of designations of origin. 
They are intended to guarantee that the product bearing them comes from a 
specified geographical area and has certain particular characteristics. They may 
enjoy a high reputation amongst consumers and constitute for producers who fulfil 
the conditions for using them an essential means of attracting custom. The 
reputation of designations of origin depends on their image in the minds of 
consumers. That image, in turn, depends, essentially, on particular characteristics 
and, more generally, on the quality of the product. It is on the latter, ultimately, 
that the product’s reputation is based. For consumers, the link between the 
reputation of the producers and the quality of the products also depends on his 
being assured that products sold under the designation of origin are authentic. 
11 However, the appellants maintain that a measure such as that introduced by 
Article 4(1) of Decree Law No 91/2014 — which requires products made partly or 
exclusively with milk other than that from farms included in the monitoring 
system for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana to be produced in a different area, 
even if in the same factory, in order to prevent any contact between milk 
originating from farms included in the monitoring system for PDO Mozzarella di 
Bufala Campana and other milk and, even more, any form of counterfeiting — 
goes way beyond such forms of protecting the value attached to the quality of 
products. 
12 Therefore, the Consiglio di Stato, dismissing the action as to the remainder, refers 
to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling the above question, as proposed by 
the appellants.