Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:269
Date: 2015-05-12
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Czechia

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 12 May 2015 1. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — System of traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) –Regulation No 1151/2012 — Entry on the TSG register of the name of a product or foodstuff — Condition — Compliance with the marketing conditions laid down by the EU legislature (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1151/2012, Art. 2(3); Council Regulation No 1234/2007) 2. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic, historic and teleological interpretation — Account to be taken of the purpose and general scheme of the measure in question 1. The provisions of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, according to which that regulation applies without prejudice to other specific Union provisions relating to the placing of products on the market and, in particular, to the single common organisation of the markets, and to food labelling, must be understood as meaning that a name may be included on the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) only if it complies with the marketing conditions set out in Regulation No 1234/2007, establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO’ Regulation). In that context, characterised by the importance attached by the EU legislature to standardising the commercial names for agricultural products in order to preserve competition and to protect consumers, an interpretation to the effect that Regulations No 1234/2007 and No 1151/2012 constitute alternative methods of registering the names of agricultural products cannot be accepted, as it would have the effect of allowing a Member State to use the TSG system in order to circumvent the rules concerning marketing standards fixed by Regulation No 1234/2007 and, supposing that the product at issue could be marketed, of conferring on the latter an unfair competitive advantage and of misleading the consumer. Likewise, the argument that that reasoning would have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of Regulation No 1151/2012, by establishing an additional procedure and limiting the appeal of the TSG qualification, cannot be upheld. The two regulations have objectives in part distinct, and provide different conditions. It is reasonable that, to the general marketing conditions for agricultural products provided in Regulation No 1234/2007, should be added the specific and distinct procedure provided by Regulation No 1151/2012, designed to provide consumers with a guarantee that certain agricultural products can legitimately claim to possess characteristics giving them an added value. (see paras 30, 35, 41, 50) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 34)