Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2002:264
Date: 2002-04-25
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Foodstuffs;Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Consumer protection;Quantitative restrictions
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

summary, therefore, the subject-matter of the present reference for a preliminary ruling is constituted by the Franco-Italian agreement of 1964 and Regulation No 1107/96. However, the legality of both those measures is at issue only in so far as they declare the rules in the Italian decree of 4 November 1991 to be applicable. In that regard, as the national court has stated, the issue in the final analysis is whether the rules under which grated Grana Padano is allowed to be placed on the market under that designation of origin only if it has been grated and packaged in the region of production are compatible with Community law. (2) Legality of the Franco-Italian agreement of 1964 (a) Existence of a measure having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC 47. According to the settled case-law of the Court, Article 29 EC prohibits national measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade, in such a way as to provide a particular advantage for national production or for the domestic market of the State in question. (17) 48. Support for the view that there is no measure having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports is provided first of all by the fact that the requirement for grating and packaging to take place in the region of production affects domestic and foreign economic operators in the same way. A business established in Rome cannot grate the cheese in Rome and sell it there under the PDO Grana Padano any more than Ravil can in France. 49. On the other hand, it must be taken into account that the requirement to grate and package the cheese in the region of production in order to be allowed to place it on the market under the designation of origin Grana Padano confers a particular advantage on the undertakings operating in the region of production inasmuch as they alone are allowed to grate and package the cheese. That activity remains reserved for the industry established in the region of production. 50. In addition, export of the cheese to other Member States might well be made more expensive by the rules at issue. Prior to export, a further processing operation must be carried out. That increase in costs hinders the export of Grana Padano. Those reasons point in favour of categorising the decree as a measure having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports. 51. As mentioned above, the case-law concerning the interpretation of Article 29 EC focuses on whether the measure in question specifically restricts exports. (18) In its judgments in Delhaize and the Rioja case, the Court held that measures under which the designation of origin for Rioja wine may be used only if the wine is bottled in the region of production specifically restrict patterns of exports for the purposes of Article 29 EC. (19) In the judgment in the Rioja case, it based that finding on the fact that the wine may also be transported unbottled within the region of production, in contrast to exported wine. (20) 52. The situation in the present case appears to be comparable. The decree in question lays down solely that the cheese must be grated and packaged in the region of production. That requirement is also observed if the cheese is transferred within the region of production from the cheese dairy to another business which then grates and packages it in accordance with the applicable rules. Therefore, here too it may be concluded that there is a specific restriction on exports. 53. It must therefore be stated in conclusion that the decree of 4 November 1991 and, in that regard, also the 1964 agreement are measures having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC since they establish a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade, in such a way as to provide a particular advantage for national production. (b) Justification of the measure in order to protect industrial property within the meaning of Article 30 EC 54. The question is thus raised of the extent to which the measure is justified on the grounds of protection of industrial property within the meaning of Article 30 EC. Designations of origin are industrial and commercial property within the meaning of Article 30 EC. (21) The restrictions on trade which they entail are justified in so far as they are necessary in order to ensure that the designation of origin fulfils its specific function, which is to guarantee that the product bearing it comes from a specified geographical area and displays certain particular characteristics. (22) Accordingly, the requirement that grating and packaging take place in the region of production would be justified if it gave the cheese from that region particular characteristics apt to distinguish it from other cheese, or if grating in the region of production were essential in order to preserve specific characteristics acquired by the cheese during its production. However, as the Commission correctly points out, only requirements observance of which is necessary in order to protect the reputation of the PDO are permissible as a restriction on the free movement of goods satisfying the principle of proportionality. (23) (i) Rules to protect a particular characteristic 55. It must therefore be examined to what extent the grating and packaging of the cheese in the region of production confers on it or preserves a characteristic which influences the consumer's choice and is therefore commercially material. 56. Support for the view that a commercially material characteristic is involved is provided first of all by the fact that, according to the submissions of Bellon and Biraghi, Italy, Spain and the Commission, grating demands special knowledge. The whole cheeses to be grated must be selected with care, using special expertise. In addition, regard is to be had during grating to certain requirements, some of which are laid down in Article 2 of the decree of 4 November 1991, so that the quality of the cheese and its particular characteristics are safeguarded. The abovementioned parties contend that this know-how is available only in the region of production. 57. A further argument in favour of a commercially material characteristic being involved is the fact, likewise relied on by Bellon and Biraghi, Italy, Spain and the Commission, that the quality controls in respect of grating and packaging are undertaken by the Grana Padano Association only in the region of production. In their submission, this is the only means of guaranteeing that Grana Padano put on the market is of a constant high quality. 58. It is to be noted, however, that none of the parties to the proceedings has put forward an argument that the grating of the cheese in the region of production is a process which confers particular characteristics on that cheese or which is essential in order to preserve the specific characteristics acquired by it during production. The special knowledge which is required in order to select the whole cheeses and in order to grate them properly in accordance with the provisions applicable to the PDO can also be applied outside the region of production. It is entirely comprehensible that, historically, the special knowledge has developed in the region of production. However, no reason has been put forward as to why that knowledge should be available only in the region of production. People who assist in the production and processing of a product can - above all through training in the region of production - gain the requisite knowledge and necessary skills for producing and processing the product. Equally people who have acquired that knowledge and those skills can move away from the region of production. It is therefore necessary to proceed on the basis that the human influences on the product are fundamentally independent of the region of production. 59. Analogous considerations apply to observance of certain external conditions when the cheese is grated, so that it can be protected from the risks of oxidation, desiccation, compression and fermentation to which Bellon and Biraghi refer. The same is true of compliance with the technical and technological parameters set out in Article 2 of the decree of 4 November 1991. (24) No argument has been advanced to support the proposition that the risks can be met only by grating in the region of production or that the technical and technological parameters can be complied with only in that region. With the technical possibilities available today, it is easy to imagine that the requirements can at any time be complied with anywhere. In that case, however, there is no apparent reason for allowing grating only in the region of production. 60. Given those circumstances, and in the absence of statements to the contrary in the order for reference and the observations of the parties to the proceedings, it is at any rate not apparent that Grana Padano - of course only if the grating takes place in compliance with all other requirements, in particular the exclusive use of Grana Padano and observance of the technical and technological parameters set out in Article 2 of the decree of 4 November 1991 - will inevitably lose its particular characteristics which it acquires through its production if it is grated outside the region of production. Cheeses are of course also allowed to be exported whole or cut up and to be grated by the ultimate consumer himself, without losing their qualitative characteristics. In this connection, it remains open to question whether it is not only persons who grate the cheese themselves who know how to appreciate properly the quality of good Grana Padano. I cannot be persuaded that grating by the ultimate consumer should be permissible but that industrial grating followed by immediate packaging should not be. From the point of view of the risk of possible losses in quality, it is also to be taken into consideration that cheeses exported whole may remain for longer with a retailer for example and therefore be exposed to the risk of desiccation, loss of aroma or deterioration in their appearance. In the case of industrial grating and packaging, it might be possible to counter those risks with specific measures. 61. There is the following further reflection. In the Rioja case, the Court came to the view that the bottling of wine in the region of production was a justified restriction on the free movement of goods since that was the best means of guaranteeing the quality of the bottled wine. It may be evident that the bottling of the wine in the region of production constitutes a commercially material characteristic, since consumers purchase wine primarily in bottles. In the case of Grana Padano, however, the situation is different. It is purchased by consumers either grated or by the piece. It is thus clear that the grating of the cheese does not have a significance comparable to that of the bottling of the wine. It is then even less the case that the place where grating takes place can have a decisive influence on consumer choice. This supports the view that grating in the region of production does not involve a commercially material characteristic. 62. By way of intermediate conclusion, therefore, grating and packaging of Grana Padano in the region of production are not to be regarded as a step which serves to protect particular characteristics of the cheese. It been not been established either that they bestow a particular characteristic upon the cheese or that grating and packaging in the region of production are necessary in order to preserve the particular characteristics acquired by the cheese in the production process. The parties too have focused less on that than on checks and on the reputation of the product linked thereto. (ii) Carrying out of quality controls in the region of production 63. If this view is followed, it is strictly speaking superfluous to discuss the carrying out of checks in respect of grating in order to safeguard the quality of Grana Padano. If grating in the region of production is not a commercially material characteristic, the fact that checks are carried out there can no longer be a decisive factor. 64. This argument will accordingly be addressed below by way of supplement only. That approach appears, first, to be necessary in case the Court does not follow the analysis set out above. Second, discussion of this argument is appropriate because the parties which plead that the requirement is lawful have, referring to the judgment in the Rioja case, relied above all on this argument. Bellon and Biraghi, Italy, Spain and the Commission contend that specialised knowledge is needed and that the special requirements set out in the decree are to be observed in order for Grana Padano to be grated in such a way that its quality and its particular characteristics are preserved. In their submission, that is crucial for preserving the body of purchasers which has been built up and hence for the economic value of the PDO Grana Padano. Only the checks systematically carried out in the region of production by the competent bodies ensure observance of the relevant criteria. They point out that there are no corresponding controls outside the region of production. Third and finally, it is necessary to discuss the issue of checks for the further reason that, as stated above, grating outside the region of production has to take place in compliance with the provisions laid down for use of the PDO. It might be relevant in this context too how observance of those requirements can be ensured. At the same time, it should be made clear from the outset that only checks in respect of grating are at issue here: cheese grated outside the region of production is of course subject, until it is grated, to exactly the same controls as cheese grated within it. 65. The carrying out of checks helps to maintain the quality and hence also the reputation of grated Grana Padano. It might accordingly be concluded that the requirement to grate the cheese in the region of production under the supervision of the Grana Padano Association and to package it immediately thereafter without using preservatives is justified in order to protect industrial property. 66. However, that conclusion is precluded by the fact that checks can in principle be carried out not only in the region of production but also outside it. Inspectors could be sent by the Grana Padano Association, or inspectors resident in the area in question could be trained by the Grana Padano Association and instructed to carry out checks. 67. It is true that the Court held in the Rioja case that controls undertaken outside the region of production in accordance with Community law provided fewer guarantees as to the quality and authenticity of the wine than those carried out in the region of production. However, it has already been pointed out above that the grating of cheese does not appear to be comparable with the bottling of wine. Consumers purchase Grana Padano either grated or by the piece, whilst, as a rule, they buy wine in bottles. If only for that reason, checks in respect of grating are probably not to be accorded the same status as checks in respect of bottling. 68. The problem addressed by Bellon and Biraghi, Spain and the Commission that no corresponding quality controls are undertaken outside the region of production is a general problem concerning the enforcement of rules in foreign legal systems. If the rules on the use of the PDO provide for corresponding controls to be undertaken, an economic operator who intends to use the PDO is required to undertake the controls, even if he grates the cheese outside the region of production. Otherwise he infringes the provisions on the use of the PDO and may not use it. 69. It is moreover possible to enforce the rules on the use of the PDO Grana Padano, including any checks, throughout the Community for the very reason that prohibitory injunctions may be applied for under Articles 8 and 13 of Regulation No 2081/92. 70. In this regard, the objection that consumers can be sure that they are obtaining Grana Padano only if the cheese is grated and packaged in the region of production under the supervision of the Grana Padano Association is also not persuasive. That is admittedly a means of guaranteeing that only cheeses bearing the PDO Grana Padano are grated. The objection implies, however, that a business which processes Grana Padano outside the region of production might use cheeses that are not allowed to bear the PDO and then nevertheless sell the grated cheese using the PDO Grana Padano. This constitutes an impermissible inference of unlawful conduct on the part of the competitor and the objection is to be rejected for that reason. 71. It must therefore be stated in conclusion that the rules in the decree of 4 November 1991 do not serve to protect a commercially material characteristic. Consequently, the restriction on the free movement of goods which has been found is not justified on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property under Article 30 EC. It thus infringes Article 29 EC. (iii) Proportionality 72. Only in the alternative and only should the Court not subscribe to the foregoing view must it therefore be discussed whether the rules in the decree of 4 November 1991 are necessary in order to protect the reputation of the PDO Grana Padano. 73. The requirement to grate Grana Padano in the region of production can ensure, in particular having regard to the quality controls undertaken by the Grana Padano Association, that the grated cheese consists only of Grana Padano, comes from the region of production and is grated in accordance with the rules laid down for using the PDO Grana Padano. However, it is questionable whether those rules are the least restrictive means of achieving the objective of fair trade and of consumer information as to the provenance of the product and its particular characteristics or whether other means having less effect on the free movement of goods are available which achieve that objective equally well. 74. Above all, appropriate product labelling must be considered. In the present case, a possibility is to label the goods as Grana Padano grated in France (râpé en France) or in a similar non-discriminatory manner. 75. In the Rioja case, the Court did not pursue the solution called to mind here. It argued that the coexistence of two different bottling processes, inside or outside the region of production, with or without systematic monitoring by the group of producers, might reduce the degree of consumer confidence in the designation denominación de origen calificada based on the conviction that the production of quality wines produced in specified regions must at every stage be carried out under the control and responsibility of the relevant group of producers. (25) 76. The present case seems to be only partially comparable. First, as already stated, the grating of cheese out of view of the consumer is not closely linked to the product in a manner comparable to the bottling of wine. Second, in the present proceedings, unlike the Rioja case, the parties have put forward no argument to the effect that consumers might not be able to distinguish between Grana Padano grated inside and outside the region of production or that there cannot possibly be two different markets, one for Grana Padano grated in the region of production and one for Grana Padano grated outside it. 77. Nor is it in any way evident that any adverse appraisal of Grana Padano grated outside the region of production would necessarily be passed on to the cheese grated inside it. Especially if provision is made here for appropriate labelling which distinguishes the two products from each other sufficiently clearly, mature and well-informed consumers, who are to be presumed not only in the context of Article 28 EC (26) but also that of Article 29 EC, could also become entirely convinced that cheese grated in the region of production for Grana Padano differs from cheese grated outside that region. Two different forms of marketing Grana Padano are involved. If the consumer comes to the conclusion that the cheese grated outside the region of production does not satisfy his requirements as regards Grana Padano, he can purchase Grana Padano grated in the region of production instead. It is in no way established that if one of the forms of the product does not appeal to the consumer he will immediately choose a different type of cheese. 78. The solution indicated here involving appropriate product labelling also finds support in Regulation No 2081/92. The fifth recital in the preamble to that regulation expressly points out that the rules concerning protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications merely supplement the general labelling provisions. They merely supplement the provisions of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer. (27) 79. It is to be noted, furthermore, that Regulation No 2081/92 itself also seeks a solution through appropriate labelling in cases of conflict. Article 12(2) of the regulation provides that in cases where a name protected under Community law is identical to a name of a third country, the name may be used only if the country of origin of the product is clearly and visibly indicated on the label. If consumers can be expected, in such cases where names are identical, to distinguish one product from the other through the country of origin being specified on the label, it is not clear why they should not be able to do the same when the label states where processing took place. 80. It must therefore be concluded that less restrictive means exist than limiting use of the PDO Grana Padano to Grana Padano grated and packaged in the region of production. Equally effective protection of the PDO Grana Padano, of the quality of the product and of its reputation with consumers can be achieved by labelling it appropriately. The decree of 4 November 1991 therefore goes beyond what is necessary and is disproportionate in that respect. (c) Conclusion in respect of the Franco-Italian agreement 81. It therefore remains to state by way of conclusion to this section of the Opinion that the Franco-Italian agreement of 1964 is incompatible with Community law in so far as it reserves use of the PDO Grana Padano for cheese which is grated in the region of production. (3) Legality of Regulation No 1107/96 82. The PDO Grana Padano became protected under Community law on the entry into force of Regulation No 1107/96. As is apparent from Article 17(3) of Regulation No 2081/92, that Community-wide protection has replaced the national protection which existed until then. (28) By means of Regulation No 1107/96 the PDO Grana Padano was entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications kept by the Commission. It is therefore necessary to discuss now whether the PDO Grana Padano protected under Community law extends to grated cheese and to what extent it is compatible with Regulation No 2081/92 and Article 29 EC or is justified under Article 30 EC. Community law measures too must be compatible with the provisions concerning the free movement of goods. (29) (a) Scope of protection provided by the PDO Grana Padano 83. Ravil disputes that the PDO Grana Padano extends to grated cheese. In that regard, it must be stated that in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation No 2081/92 a specification is to be annexed to applications for registration. By virtue of Article 4(2)(i) the specification may contain a reference to any requirements laid down by Community law and/or national provisions. 84. The specification submitted with the application for registration of the PDO Grana Padano, which the Commission has lodged with the Court at the latter's request, contains a reference to the decree of 4 November 1991. (30) It does not appear that that reference to the decree was deleted during the procedure for entering the PDO Grana Padano in the register kept by the Commission. The PDO Grana Padano therefore extends to grated cheese. (b) Compatibility of the rules with Regulation No 2081/92 85. This leads to the question whether it was open to the Commission to register the PDO Grana Padano with that protective scope. It must therefore be examined whether the registration is compatible with Regulation No 2081/92. 86. In accordance with Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation No 2081/92, a designation of origin is used to describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff originating in the region, specific place or country in question, the quality or characteristics of which are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors, and the production, processing and preparation of which take place in the defined geographical area. Grating and packaging in the region of production under the supervision of the Grana Padano Association are processing operations. They ensure that the grated cheese consists of cheese which is allowed to be placed on the market under the PDO Grana Padano. The supervision by the Grana Padano Association ensures that the provisions concerning the processing of Grana Padano are observed. 87. When reviewing the legality of a registration, regard is to be had to the division of powers between the Member States and the Commission introduced by Regulation No 2081/92. As the Court explained in its judgment in Carl Kühne, an application for registration under Article 5 of Regulation No 2081/92 is to be submitted through a Member State. The Member State has the task of checking whether the application is justified with regard to the conditions laid down by the regulation. It must forward the application to the Commission only if it concludes that that is the case. The Commission then undertakes merely a formal examination in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2081/92. Its examination includes checking whether the specification contains the particulars required under Article 4 and whether, on the basis of the specification, the designation satisfies the requirements of Article 2(2)(a) or (b). (31) In so doing, the Commission confines itself to examining whether the assessment made by the competent Member State is not manifestly incorrect. (32) This applies to both the normal procedure under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2081/92 and the simplified procedure under Article 17. (33) The point of that division of powers is that examination of an application for registration requires, to a great extent, detailed knowledge of matters particular to the Member State concerned, matters which the national authorities are best placed to check. (34) 88. The foregoing division of powers also has an effect on review by the Community judicature of the Commission's registration decisions. Thus, the only matters to be examined are whether the Commission complied with its obligation of verification and whether the abovementioned requirements under Articles 2 and 4 of the regulation are met. (35) 89. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is to be assumed that the Commission examined the application and accompanying specification which the Italian Government forwarded under the procedure provided for in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92. In accordance with the findings set out above, it is at any rate not manifest that the specification is incomplete or that the particulars contained in it, including the requirement for grating and packaging to take place in the region of production under the supervision of the Grana Padano Association, do not justify the registration as a PDO. Consequently, the registration by means of Regulation No 1107/96 does not infringe Regulation No 2081/92. (c) Compatibility of the rules with Article 29 EC 90. Since the PDO Grana Padano also extends to grated cheese, it is prohibited under Article 8 of Regulation No 2081/92 to use the PDO Grana Padano within the Community for grated cheese which, while produced from Grana Padano, has not been grated and packaged in the region of production. It must therefore now be examined to what extent Article 8 of Regulation No 2081/92 in conjunction with Regulation No 1107/96 and the specification for the PDO Grana Padano is compatible with Community law, in particular Articles 29 EC and 30 EC. 91. In accordance with the reasoning set out above, the Italian decree is a measure having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC. It is not justified for the protection of industrial and commercial property within the meaning of Article 30 EC. In so far as Regulation No 1107/96 therefore confers validity on the rules in the decree throughout the Community it too infringes Articles 29 EC and 30 EC. 92. In contrast to the position when examining the period before Regulation No 1107/96 entered into force, it is, however, necessary at this point to discuss the general tendency of legislation to bring out the quality of products within the framework of the common agricultural policy, in order to promote their reputation. The means used for this purpose include designations of origin. (36) That tendency is borne out by the second to sixth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2081/92. The legal basis for that regulation is, logically, Article 37 EC, which is in the agriculture chapter of the Treaty. The legislature is thereby concerned not only with protecting the quality of agricultural products but, as is shown by the second recital in the preamble to the regulation, above all also with matters of structural policy. The promotion of rural areas is sought by improving farmers' income and retaining the rural population in those areas. In that regard, it is necessary to agree with Ravil's submission that the restriction imposed by the decree of 4 November 1991 confers an advantage on undertakings in the region of production. That is fully intended under Regulation No 2081/92. These findings might support the view that the rules in the decree of 4 November 1991 and, to that extent, Regulation No 1107/96 too should be held compatible with Community law. 93. The view that regard is not to be had to structural-policy considerations in order to justify restrictions on the free movement of goods is supported first of all by the wording of Article 30 EC. The list of grounds upon which a restriction on the free movement of goods may be justified does not include a structural-policy considerations or agricultural policy category. According to the case-law, the list of exceptions in Article 30 EC is, however, definitive. (37) 94. Furthermore, in accordance with general rules of interpretation Article 30 EC is, as an exception to the principle of the free movement of goods, to be construed narrowly. (38) This too provides support for the view that quantitative restrictions on exports and measures having equivalent effect should be accepted as justified within narrow limits only. With regard to designations of origin, it appears justified to accept restrictions arising from natural influences on the product in question, since they are tied to the region of production. On the other hand, this is not true of know-how, which in principle can also be applied outside the region of production. 95. It is also to be observed that a broad interpretation of Article 30 EC appears particularly uncalled for when examining restrictions on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC. As explained above, Article 29 EC has been defined by the case-law as meaning that not every restriction on exports, but only those measures which specifically prevent the export of goods, are prohibited under that provision. That case-law defines the field of application of the prohibition of restrictions on exports substantially more narrowly than the field of application for restrictions on imports under Article 28 EC. In accordance with the Dassonville formula, Article 28 EC prohibits any measure which is capable of directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, hindering intra-Community trade. (39) If, however, the field of application of Article 29 EC is narrower than that of Article 28 EC, there is, in the context of Article 29 EC in particular, even less reason to interpret the exception in Article 30 EC broadly. Therefore, when interpreting Article 30 EC, only those measures which are essential in order to guarantee the provenance and quality of the product protected by the PDO should be accepted as justified. 96. Finally, the matter should also be considered from the following angle. When the Court has interpreted the provisions on the free movement of goods, it has always endeavoured to help that fundamental freedom to assert itself over national measures which, like the decree under discussion here, are intended inter alia to protect domestic industry. The disputes in this context have often concerned foodstuffs whose raw materials essentially consist of agricultural products. A well-known example is the judgment on the German Reinheitsgebot (purity requirement) for beer (40) which can be traced back to a Bavarian Purity Law adopted in 1516. Other cases have related to Italian pasta, (41) the minimum fat content of Edam cheese (42) and the marketing of deep-frozen yoghurt. (43) Two cases on chocolate are currently pending. (44) 97. The case-law on the interpretation of Article 28 EC may have prompted producers to seek refuge in industrial property rights, that is to say to endeavour to compensate for the lost national statutory protection from competition by creating new rights as protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications. Beer provides a striking demonstration of this tendency. After the Court declared that the Bavarian/German purity requirement, which reserved use of the designation beer for beer having only certain ingredients, was incompatible with Article 28 EC, beer produced in other Member States otherwise than in accordance with the purity requirement could also be sold in Germany under the designation beer. Initially the German breweries tried to compensate for the economic loss which the opening up of the German market to competing products from other Member States entailed for them by advertising, for instance by including the words brewed in accordance with the German purity requirement on the label. In the meantime Bayerisches Bier (Bavarian beer) was entered in the register kept by the Commission as a protected geographical indication under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92. (45) If the Court therefore acts in a generous manner in the context of the recognition of industrial property rights and allows provisions which objectively are not essential in order to protect the origin of a product in a certain area and its particular characteristics, it runs the risk of again losing, within the framework of Article 29 EC, the freedom of movement of goods and opening up of national markets achieved in the course of interpreting Article 28 EC. 98. The connection between Articles 28 EC, 29 EC and 30 EC demonstrated in the last two arguments and the consequences of the case-law on Article 28 EC, which has always favoured the free movement of goods, support in any event a narrow interpretation of the exceptions justified under Article 30 EC. 99. Consequently, in the context of the specification to be submitted under Article 4 of Regulation No 2081/92 with an application for registration, only those provisions which are indispensable for guaranteeing the provenance and particular characteristics of the product are to be accepted, and not also those provisions which are exclusively designed to grant the local undertakings resident in the region of production an exclusive right to the further processing of the product. 100. It must therefore be stated in conclusion that the structural-policy objectives in the field of agricultural policy pursued by means of Regulation No 2081/92 are likewise not capable of justifying under Article 30 EC the restriction on exports which has been found. (d) Conclusion 101. The Commission, acting on the basis of Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92, adopted Regulation No 1107/96 by which the PDO Grana Padano - including the requirement contained in the decree of 4 November 1991 that the cheese must be grated and packaged in the region of production - was entered in the register of designations of origin and geographical indications protected under Regulation No 2081/92. By means of Regulation No 1107/96 the restriction on exports which has been found in the present case thus acquired the status of Community law. That regulation is accordingly to be declared invalid on the ground of infringement of Article 29 EC in so far as it reserves the PDO Grana Padano for grated cheese which is grated and packaged in the region of production. VI - Conclusion 102. On the basis of the foregoing arguments, I propose the following answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling: (1) Article 29 EC is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which reserves the protected designation of origin Grana Padano for cheese which is grated and packaged in the region of production. (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 is invalid in so far as it reserves the protected designation of origin Grana Padano for grated cheese which is grated and packaged in the region of production. 1: - Original language: German. 2: - OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1. 3: - This footnote concerns only the German version of the Opinion. 4: - Under Article 18 the regulation was to enter into force 12 months after the date of its publication. Since the regulation was published in the Official Journal on 24 July 1992, it entered into force on 24 July 1993. The simplified procedure was therefore applicable until 24 January 1994. 5: - OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1. 6: - Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana (GURI) No 95 of 30 April 1954, p. 1294. 7: - GURI No 295 of 22 December 1955, p. 4401. 8: - Article 1 of the decree states: La denominazione di origine del formaggio Grana padano è estesa alla tipologia grattugiato, ottenuta esclusivamente da formaggio intero avente diritto alla denominazione di origine di cui trattasi, a condizione che le operazioni di grattugia siano effetuate nell'ambito della zona di produzione del formaggio medesimo e che il confezionamento avvenga immediatamente senza nessun trattamento e senza aggiunta di sostanze atte a modificare la coservabilità e le caratteristiche organolettiche originarie. Article 2 states: La tipologia della denominazione in parola è riservata al formaggio grattugiato avente i parametri tecnici e tecnologici sottospecificati: presenza di grassi sulla sostanza secca: non inferiore al 32%; età: non inferiore a nove mesi ed entro i limiti fissati dallo standard di produzzione; additivi: Secondo legge; carratteri organolettici: conformi alle definizioni stabilite dallo standard di produzione; umindità: non inferiore al 25% e non superiore al 35%; aspetto: non pulverulento ed omogeneo, particelle con diametro inferiore a 0,5 mm non superiori a 25%; quantità di crosta: non superiore al 18%; composizione amminoacida: specifica del Grana Padano. The decree was published in GURI No 83 of 8 April 1992. 9: - Decree No 69-393 of 24 April 1969, Journal officiel de la République française of 27 April 1969; see also GURI 1967 No 163, p. 1074. 10: - Case C-47/90 Delhaize et Le Lion [1992] ECR I-3669. 11: - Case C-388/95 Belgium v Spain [2000] ECR I-3123. 12: - Case C-3/91 Exportur [1992] ECR I-5529. 13: - GURI 1967 No 163, p. 1074. 14: - Exportur, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 37, and Belgium v Spain, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 54. 15: - Convenzione tra l'Italia e la Francia per la protezione delle denominazioni di origine, delle indicazioni di provenienza e delle denominazioni di alcuni prodotti, con Protocollo annesso (cited in footnote 13). 16: - See, with regard to a similar situation, the findings in Exportur, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 8. 17: - Case C-209/98 Sydhavnens Sten & Grus [2000] ECR I-3743, paragraph 34, Case 172/82 Inter-Huiles and Others [1983] ECR 555, paragraph 12, and Case 238/82 Duphar [1984] ECR 523, paragraph 25. 18: - Cf. Exportur, cited in footnote 12, paragraphs 16 to 22, where the two, differing, approaches to Articles 28 EC and 29 EC are discussed in the light of the law on designations of origin. 19: - Delhaize et Le Lion, cited in footnote 10, paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, and Belgium v Spain, cited in footnote 11, paragraphs 38 to 42. 20: - Belgium v Spain, cited in footnote 11, paragraphs 38 to 42. 21: - Exportur, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 37, and Belgium v Spain, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 54. 22: - Delhaize et Le Lion, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 16 et seq., and Exportur, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 24. 23: - See, with regard to this approach in the case-law, for example Case C-228/91 Commission v Italy [1993] ECR I-2701, paragraph 19. 24: - See the text of Article 2, quoted in footnote 8. 25: - Belgium v Spain, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 77. 26: - See Case C-3/99 Ruwet [2000] ECR I-8749, paragraph 53. 27: - OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1. 28: - See also the Communication to enterprises which use designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs on the simplified Community registration procedure provided for in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1993 C 273, p. 4). 29: - Case C-51/93 Meyhui [1994] ECR I-3879, paragraph 11. 30: - See the list of Italian legislation relating to protection of the designation of origin Grana Padano which is set out on p. 9 of the Domanda di Registrazione DOP (Denominazione di origine protetta) Grana Padano. 31: - Judgment in Case C-269/99 Carl Kühne and Others [2001] ECR I-9517, paragraphs 50 to 54. 32: - Carl Kühne, cited in footnote 31, paragraph 60. 33: - Carl Kühne, cited in footnote 31, paragraph 52. 34: - Carl Kühne, cited in footnote 31, paragraph 53. 35: - Carl Kühne, cited in footnote 31, paragraphs 49 and 57 to 60. 36: - See the findings in Belgium v Spain, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 53. 37: - See the judgments in Case 113/80 Commission v Ireland [1981] ECR 1625, paragraph 7, in Case 95/81 Commission v Italy [1982] ECR 2187, paragraph 20 et seq., and in Joined Cases C-321/94, C-322/94, C-323/94 and C-324/94 Pistre and Others [1997] ECR I-2343, paragraph 52, and the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-312/98 Warsteiner Brauerei [2000] ECR I-9187, paragraph 36. 38: - Judgment in Case C-205/89 Commission v Greece [1991] ECR I-1361, paragraph 9, and Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-358/95 Morellato [1997] ECR I-1431, point 21. 39: - Case 8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5. See also Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, paragraph 11. 40: - Case 178/84 Commission v Germany [1987] ECR 1227. 41: - Case 407/85 3 Glocken and Another v USL Centro-Sud and Another [1988] ECR 4233. 42: - Case 286/86 Deserbais [1988] ECR 4907. 43: - Case 298/87 Smanor [1988] ECR 4489. 44: - They are Case C-12/00 Commission v Spain and Case C-14/00 Commission v Italy, in which Opinions were delivered on 6 December 2001. 45: - Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 of 28 June 2001 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 2001 L 182, p. 3).