EN   EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Brussels, 13.4.2022  
SWD(2022) 114 final  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
  
Accompanying the document  
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL  
on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products and amending 
Regulations (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/1753 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council and Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754  
{COM(2022)  174 final} - {SEC(2022)  193 final} - {SWD(2022)  115 final} - 
{SWD(2022)  116 final}   
 
1 
 Subsidiarity Grid  
 
1. Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action?  
1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative?  
Article 118(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU): Measures for the creation of 
European intellectual property rights  
Article 207(2) TFEU: Measures defining the framework f or implementing common commercial policy 
obligations stemming from EU accession to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement  
1.2 Is  the Union  competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature?  
In the case of Article 207 (2) TFEU, the Union has exclusive competence.  In addition to the shared 
competence that is analysed in the subsidiarity grid, the proposal also relies on exclusive 
competencies for which subsidiarity naturally does not need to be further analysed. In the case of 
Article 118 (1) TFEU , the Union and the Member States share competence.  
Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive  competence as defined in 
Article 3 TFEU[1]. It is the specific legal basis which determines whether the proposal fa lls under the 
subsidiarity control mechanism. Article 4 TFEU[2] sets out t he areas where competence is shared 
between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU[3] sets out the areas for which the Unions 
has competence only to support the actions of the Member States.  
2. Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act?  
2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 21: 
- Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act?  
- Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level?  
There has been a wide consultation before proposing the Regulation  concerning geographical 
indication (GI) protection for craft and industrial (CI) products . A 2013 survey  consulted  stakeholders  
on their  needs and exp ectations with regard to a possible legal protection  for the names of 
geographically linked CI products . Then followed  the results  of a 2014  public consultation  publish ed 
in 201 5, an October 2016 workshop  on the "contribution of non -agricultural geographically rooted 
products to regional inclusive economic development " organised in the framework of the European 
Week of Regions and Cities 2016 , an 18 November 2019 workshop  presenting the results of the 
“Study on Economic aspects of geographical indication protection for non -agricultural products at EU 
level, and a panel in the framework of the 25 November 2020  online  Conference  on Strengthening 
Geographical Indications . In 2020, the Commission consulted also interested circles on its 2020 
Inception Impact Assessment  on an EU -wide initiative on geographical indicati ons for CI products.  On 
13 July 2021, a workshop presented and discussed the preliminary findings of the “Study on Control 
and Enforcement Rules for geographical indication (GI) protection for non -agricultural products in 
the EU”. A public consultation  on EU -wide protection of geographical indication for non -agricultural 
                                                           
1 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN   
 
2 
 products run from 29 April 2021 to 22  July 2021.  The explanatory memorandum and the impact 
assessment (chapter 3) contain a section on the principle of subsidiarity and refer to question 2.2 
below .  
2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 
Commission’s pro posal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the 
principle of subsidiarity?  
Yes. The explanatory memorandum which summarizes  the content of Chapter 3 of the Impact 
assessment report , provides that apart from its general objective to enable the effective fulfillment 
of obligations stemming from the EU accession to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement, which 
falls under the common commercial policy and is an exclusive competence of the Union, this 
proposal also aims at creating a well -functioning internal market for CI geographically linked  
products. In this regard, it provides for an adequate and harmonised regulatory framework for CI GIs, 
whose protection falls under the shared competence between th e EU and the Member States in the 
area of the internal market. This objective cannot be effectively achieved by the Member States 
alone due to a patchwork of divergent rules, which have developed at national level and are not 
mutually recognised. National approaches will only result in legal uncertainty for producers seeking 
protection, mislead consumers, affect intra -Union trade, and make way for unequal competition in 
marketing GI protected CI products. A solid European regulatory framework can provide fo r equal 
protection conditions in all Member States, thus creating legal certainty and incentives for 
investment in geographically rooted CI products. This objective can be better achieved at Union 
level. ’  
2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 
achieved sufficiently b y the Member States acting alone  (necessity for EU action)?  
Since the accession of the EU to the Geneva Act in 2019, it is not possible for EU Member States to 
join the international system o n their own, due to the EU’s exclusive competence.  The problem of 
regulatory fragmentation cannot be solved by the Member States alone. Various GI protection 
systems for CI products have developed at national level. These frameworks are not mutually 
recogn ised;  hence producers face legal uncertainty and costly and complex administrative burdens to 
protect and enforce their GI product across the internal market.  
(a) Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross -border aspects to the problems being 
tackled? Have these been quantified?  
Due to a complex landscape of available protection routes in the EU (EU trade mark, EU collective 
mark, national GI right where available, national collective mark, national certification mark where 
available), it is h ard for producers to navigate towards obtaining and enforcing protection  
throughout the EU . Discrepancies among various protection routes result in complicated and costly 
ways of securing protection that are unworkable for a typical cluster of small firms producing CI 
products. Moreover, the variety and divergence of national initiatives results in legal uncertainty for 
producers, may mislead consumers, weaken intra -Union trade, and make way for abuses of GI 
infringements offline and online. On top of that , obtaining protection in third countries using WIPO’s 
Lisbon system for international registration  is not available in most Member States . Only  seven EU 
Member States are party to  the Lisbon Agreement and only two of those EU Member States are 
 
3 
 party to the  Geneva Act (having acceded after  the EU joined) .  
In 2019 the European Parliamentary Research Service published a Cost of Non -Europe report2 in 
which costs arising from the lack of EU legislation protecting GIs for CI products are quantified. In 
addition, the Impact assessment report as far as possible quantifies, or at least qualifies , e.g. via case 
studies , consequences of missed opportunities for European CI producers (foregone revenues, free-
riding and lost revenues ), consumers (increase of  consumers search cost)  or regions . 
(b) Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 
the Treaty3 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States?  
The absence of the EU level action  would  conflict w ith core objectives of the Treaty4. In accordance 
with Article 3 of the Treaty, t he EU aims in particular at establishing an internal market, promote 
economic, social,  and territorial cohesion , and ensur e that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded 
and enhanced. However, b uilding on the trend identified in the 2020 Study5, whereby many CI GI 
products have disappeared from the list identified in the 2013 Study, many producers may be 
discouraged from cont inuing to produce CI products, thus negatively affecting regions and their 
possible recovery, the attractiveness of craft, and limiting the preservation of cultural heritage.  With 
the current fragmentation at national level and the lack of an EU scheme and  registration for CI 
products, producers will continue to have difficulties to protect their GI at EU level and globally, 
facing unnecessary administrative burdens and costs, as well as less effective enforcement remedies.  
 
In addition, in relation to the wider world the EU Treaty aims at strict observance of international 
law. The EU is obliged under international law to protect all GIs (not only  agricultural  GIs) to 
comply with the Geneva Act.  Discretion exists  only about  how (the legal vehicle)  to protec t the 
remaining (non -agricultural) products. Therefore, creating EU - level protection for CI GIs is necessary 
to meet the EU’s international obligations under the Geneva Act.  Furthermore, the absence of the EU 
level action would significantly damage the in terests of Member States not already party to the 
Lisbon Agreement . Since the EU’s accession to the Geneva Act in 2019, it is not clear whether it is 
possible for EU Member States (in particular, for those not party to the Lisbon system already under 
the L isbon Agreement) to join the Geneva Act  on their own . Due to the EU’s exclusive competence , 
the possibility of EU Member States to join the Geneva Act is notably still pending (CJEU case C -
24/20).   Therefore , producers in  Member States currently outside the Lisbon system could only have 
a chance to benefit from access to the international system if they could obtain protection at EU 
level, a s only based on  such registration would it become possible for them to seek protection in all 
coun tries party to the Geneva Act.  
(c) To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 
measures?  
Members States could  freely :  
- establish national protection systems to certify the link between specific product qualities and 
the origin of CI products ;  
- or decide further to approximate their national laws on the protection of GIs for CI products, for 
example as regards  the term and scope of protection, the territorial lin k, or procedural aspects 
such as application and registration. They could also decide to make the listing of all national GIs 
                                                           
2 European Parliament (2019). Geographical indications for non -agricultural products. Cost of non -Europe 
report . Study by European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS).  
3 https://europa.eu/european -union/about -eu/eu -in-brief_en   
4 https://europa.eu/european -union/about -eu/eu -in-brief_en   
5 VVA et al. (2020), supra note.  
 
4 
 titles in the EU public and/or to mutually recognise a national decision to protect a GI for a 
specific CI product.  
- However, besid es the current seven members of the Lisbon Agreement (Bulgaria, Czechia, 
France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal,  and Slovakia), no other Member State could join after the EU 
joined in 2019.  Finally, Member States would do not have the possibility on their own t o set up 
an EU -wide GI protection scheme.  
(d) How does the problem and its causes ( e.g.,  negative externalities, spill -over effects) vary 
across the national, regional,  and local levels of the EU?  
The p roblem  of missed opportunities for European CI producers  and its causes (EU accession to the 
Geneva Act, divergent national IP protection rules across Member States and e xisting EU laws not 
suitable) vary across the national , regional,  and local levels of the EU.  
At national level , the lack of an EU pr otection system for GIs relating to CI products results in the 
impossibility for CI producers from 2 0 Member States (all except Bulgaria, Czechia, France, 
Hungary, Italy, Portugal,  and Slovakia) to benefit from the EU’s accession to the Geneva Act by 
means  of obtaining protection for their GIs in third countries members of the Geneva Act.  Indeed, 
currently , producers of CI products in the EU may or may not have access to protection through the 
international registration system depending on which EU Member S tate they are based in. Producers 
in such Member States ( e.g. French or Czech producers), after obtaining GI protection in their own 
country, can request the filing of an international application and possibly obtain protection in all 
other countries party  to the Lisbon Agreement (for example, Mexico or Tunisia). However, producers 
in all other EU Member States (for example, German, Belgian, Spanish,  or Polish producers) do not 
have any opportunity to use the Lisbon system – not even if they can register a geographical 
indication in their home country. Since the accession of the EU to the Geneva Act in 2019, it is not 
possible for EU Member States to join the international system on their own, due to the EU’s 
exclusive competence.  
The existence of divergent  national IP protection rules across  Member States affect s them  to a 
different extent. Currently  producers who wish to protect product names in their own country, can 
take two major routes. They can either file an application for a geographical indication,  or file an 
application for trade mark protection. Through th e first route GI protection will be broader, as such 
protection is provided for by legal provisions tailor -made to suit this special kind of intellectual 
property, whereby the public authorities play a stronger monitoring role. However, this route  being  
not available in eleven EU Member States  (Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Sweden) , producers based in these Member States 
will not  benefit from this fitted protection  and public authority support .   
At local level , some EU regions are more affected than others. A s highlighted in Annex 5 of the 
Impact assessment report, regions with CI GIs are today characterised with GDP per capita b elow or 
employment rate below the EU average. CI GI products are found in predominantly non -urban 
regions  characterised by higher vulnerability to the tourism sector.  
(e) Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States?  
As shown in the Impact assessment report, t he problem is widespread across the local regions of the 
EU. However , there are less CI GIs products in Nordic  countries like Finland or Denmark, while 
Mediterranean countries  like Spain, or Italy or central east cou ntries like Slovakia or Hungary have 
more CI GI candidates . This reflects also why views/preferred courses of action of authorities differ 
across the EU (see below reply to question g).  
In addition, the existence of divergent national IP protection rules a cross Member States affects 
 
5 
 producers from Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 
the Netherlands, Sweden  who do not have any opportunity to use the Lisbon system to a different 
extent  than other EU producers as already mentioned above (under reply to question d ).  
(f) Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure?  
The planned measure does not impose heavy burdens on Member States. The future EU protection 
system for ‘craft and industrial’ geographical indications consist of a two -stage procedure. First, 
national authorities would assess producers’ applications; in a second stage, an existing EU agency, 
the EUIPO will handle the regi stration and appeals . Managing the new title at national level, to assess 
the applications, could be handled by e.g.,  existing IP office infrastructures and would only require 
extremely limited  extra resources  (not even necessarily one full time examiner).  Member States 
would be face limited  reporting only every four years, with no  auditing obligations . They could either 
delegate control to national third parties entities or  even further totally exclud e using third -party 
certification, as producers would be  able to self -certify compliance with GI requirements. In addition, 
measures have been taken to offer Member States  that comply certain criteria (see article 15 of the 
Commission proposal) ways to limit their intervention even further  in achieving the obje ctives of the 
planned measure by creating a registration system whereby national authorities do not participate in 
the examination and registration, and local producers go directly either to another interested 
national competent authority or to the EU leve l (EUIPO) for registering their GIs.  
(g) How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional,  and local authorities 
differ across the EU?  
Since 2013  (see consultations under 2.1 above) , a large majority of EU stakeholders (producers, 
public authorities,  or governments) have called on the European Commission to create a regulatory 
framework for the protection of geographically linked CI products. In 2021 Bulgaria, Czech ia, France, 
Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Germany  expresse d their strong support for a 
forthcoming legislative proposal  on EU -wide specific ( sui generis ) protection of GIs for CI products .  
Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands,  and Sweden instead have expressed their reluctance to establish 
such  protection system at EU level. The y fear that a new sui generis  system would be too 
burdensome for public administrations and may increase the price of the product, and assum e that 
the existing trade mark system already provides sufficient protection.  
2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 
better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)?  
The problem of regulatory fragmentation would be effectively solved at EU level. An EU initiative 
could provide for equal protection conditions in all Member States, thus creating legal certainty and 
incentives for investment in geographically linked CI products. In comparison, the variety and 
divergence of national initiatives results in legal uncertainty for producers seeking protection, 
mislead consumers, impede intra -Union trade, and make way for unequal competition in marketing 
GI protected products.  
An EU -wide approach for GI protection would also enable the EU to fully be nefit from the 
opportunities offered by the international system of appellations of origin and GIs (Lisbon system).   
(a) Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  
An EU initiative will allow the EU to fulfil its obligations following accession to the Lisbon/Geneva act. 
It could provide for equal protection conditions in all Member States, thus creating legal certainty 
and incentives for investment in geographically linked CI products.  It will provide a single registration 
 
6 
 point at the EU level and uniform protection that will enable producers to protect and signal quality 
of their products due to geographical origin in the internal market.  It will allow all EU producers to 
obtain GI protection in third counties via Lisbon/Geneva route.  
Such protection should unlock the potential for additional sales, contributing to the increased 
profitability and attractiveness of the craft professions that often belongs to the EU cultural her itage. 
Producers of CI products will benefit from additional enforcement actions that will be carried out by 
public bodies.6 
(b) Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 
benefits per unit cost)? Will the fun ctioning of the internal market be improved?  
Number of potential CI GIs in the EU is limited and  estimated between 300 and 800. Consequently,  
economies of scale are also limited. However,  a single EU wide system should provide additional 
benefits in terms  of registration and enforcement for the whole territory of the EU. Additionally,  such 
a single EU wide registration authority for Geneva Act was already given to the EU (either 
Commission or its agency) by Regulation (EU) 2019/1753 of 23 October 2019 on t he action of the 
Union following its accession to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin 
and Geographical Indications .  
The functioning of the internal market will be improved. EU -wide GI protection will allow craftsmen 
to capture  price premium that consumers are willing to pay for quality that comes with the territorial 
link (See section 2.2 of the impact assessment report). Such scheme encourages investments in 
innovation and quality. Case studies for agricultural products in I taly, Germany  and B elgium  
demonstrate that product characteristics protected by geographical indications do not remain static 
but evolve both with regard to the production and to the marketing.7 CI GI producers innovate by 
developing new designs .8  
(c) What are the benefits  in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 
homogenous policy approach?  
Benefits are high considering  the current fragmented approach.  The EU policy approach allows to 
link the quality of the product with its territorial origin at the EU level . 
 
It provide s a single registration point at the EU level  and uniform protection  that will enable 
producers  to protect and signal to consumers quality of their products due to geographical origin in 
the internal market . The relevant EU body in charge of managing the EU -level stage of the 
registration process could be the Commission services or a specialised EU body like the EU IP Office 
(EUIPO)  which  have already an experience in dealing with case -by-case  administration o f applications 
or amendments procedures related to specific rights.   
 
To the opposite, a  meaningful approximation of GI protection at national level would practically 
imply from certain Member States to establish a full new regulatory system for national G Is in 
addition to complying with the new EU sets of rules aiming to establish the EU GI title and system. 
Harmonisation might therefore create a disproportionate amount of regulatory and administrative 
burden, particularly on these Member States that would  have less incentives to put in place a 
                                                           
6 EUIPO (December, 2017) Protection and Control of Geographical Indications for Agricultural p roducts in the 
EU. 
7 Gocci, A., Luetge, C., & Vakoufaris, H. (2020). Between Tradition and Sustainable Innovation: Empirical 
Evidence for the Role of Geographical Indications. International Business Research , 13(9), 101 -101.  
8 VVA et al (2020) supra note. Annex.  
 
7 
 national infrastructure to handle national GIs. In addition, harmonisation would also require 
continuous investment to maintain convergence between national protection systems  as the 
establishment of the harmonised t rade mark system has shown.  
(d) Do the benefits of EU -level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States 
and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national, 
regional,  and local levels)?  
Various cases a rise depending on whether the Member State has already a specific  competence in 
place or not to protect GIs for CI products. Member States where there w as no specific protection in 
place  do not lose competence . They  will have an additional one that they will either exercise directly 
(when they create a specific system) or transfer to the EUIPO or another Member State (when they 
decide to appoint a national authority from another Member State or the EUIPO for the 
mana gement of the applications of geographical indications for craft and industrial products ). The 
other EU M ember States will lose competence  to grant the title at national level, however they will 
keep  exclusive competence on scrutiniz ing the conditions for granting the future EU protection title 
in particular its essential criterion of checking the link between the  quality of the product and its 
territorial origin . In any event, the specific protection title will be granted at EU level.  
 
At international lev el, only a n EU -wide specific GI title will fully enable  EU producers who seek 
international protection to benefit from equivalent protection in other parties to the Geneva Act and 
enables third countries or organisations parties to the Geneva Act to obtain  specific GI protection in 
the entire EU for their CI products.   
(e) Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation?  
There will be improved clarity for the persons or authorities having to implement the legislation.  
First, the rules that create a common EU protection system are clearly laid down in the regulation.  
Second, the EU and/or its agency in charge of registrat ion will  provide guidance . 
 
Improved clarity will be achieved by i) allowing a path for companies from all Member States to 
obtain CI GI protection throughout the EU and in third countries via Lisbon/Geneva route; ii) allowing 
applicants from third countri es to obtain CI GI protection in the EU as per obligations stemming from 
the EU’s accession to the Lisbon system.  
 
3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act  
3.1  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 
Commission’s propo sal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with the 
principle of proportionality?  
The proposal has been designed to minimise the administrative burden and compliance costs for 
producers and public authorities, while ensuring equal treatment throughout the Union. As 
highlighted in the Impact assessment report, the scope of chosen policy option does not go beyond 
what is necessary to achieve the ide ntified problems/objectives. It is limited to the aspects that 
Member States cannot achieve satisfactory on their own and where the Union can do better .  
3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the  explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?  
 
8 
 The proposed action is an appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives.  
The proposal aims at establishing a directly applicable GI protection for craft and industrial products 
at EU level. It aims at improving the position of producers to protect their craft and industrial 
products throughout the EU against counterfeiting and to give them incentives to invest in these 
products. Als o, the proposal has the objective of enhancing the visibility of authentic craft and 
industrial products on the markets and hence benefit consumers. The regions  in which producers 
operate  should benefit from the protection of typical products and be able to develop the potential 
for tourism, to keep and attract qualified work force as well as to preserve their cultural heritage. The 
proposal is based on the so -called sui generis  (specific)  GI protection, which implies that producers as 
well as public authorities collaborate on the development of product specifications. This approach 
intends to help especially SMEs which lack resources.  
Finally, the proposal has the objective of ensuring tha t producers can fully benefit from the 
international framework for the registration and protection of geographical indications (‘Lisbon 
system’).  
(a) Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 
their own, an d where the Union can do better?  
The problem of regulatory fragmentation cannot be solved by the Member States alone. Various GI 
protection systems for CI products have developed at national level. These frameworks are not 
mutually recognised, hence produ cers face legal uncertainty and costly and complex administrative 
burdens to protect and enforce their GI product across the internal market. The EU can do better. As 
highlighted in the Impact assessment report, the initiative  is proportioned . It does not go beyond 
what is necessary to achieve the identified problems/objectives. Its scope is limited to the aspects 
that Member States cannot achieve satisfactory on their own and where the Union can do better.   
(b) Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 
coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives 
pursued ( e.g.,  choice between regulation, (framework) directive, recommendation, or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co -legislation, etc.)?  
The preferred instrument choice is the adoption of a self -standing EU Regulation establishing a sui 
generis  system based on an EU title to protect GIs for CI products . This choice favours a legal regime 
that is simple and co herent with its main objective which is to enable the effective fulfilment of 
international obligations by establishing a system at EU level that allows for the protection of third 
countries’ CI GIs within the EU and the protection of EU CI GIs in the cont racting states of the Lisbon 
system.  
As far as the instruments of its implementation is concerned ( e.g.,  self-standing EU Regulation) the 
form of EU action is justified with view to the fragmented national regulatory framework and the 
necessity of having a single title due to international obligations.   
(c) Does the Union action leave as much scope for national  decision as possible while achieving 
satisfactorily the objectives set? ( e.g.,  is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument o r approach?)  
The Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving satisfactorily 
the objectives set. As already mentioned above (under 2.3 f) Member States are not overstretched in 
achieving the objectives of the planned measure. As al ready mentioned above ( under 3.2) the 
proposed action is an appropriate way to achieve satisfactorily the intended objectives . 
 
9 
 (d) Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national 
governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators,  or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved?  
The initiative creates  financial or administrative cost for the Union, national governments, regional or 
local authorities, economic operators,  or citizens. However,  the corresponding costs commensurate 
with the objective to be achieved.  
The costs at national level are estimated on average at EUR 11,500 per CI GI. This includes 
approximate registration cost of EUR  7,500, verification/ random control cost of EUR  100, 
enforcement and management cost of around EUR  3,900. The costs for  sixteen Member States with 
existing national CI GI systems (Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, France, Germany, 
Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slo vakia and Slovenia) should be minimal 
with potential savings on registration  and new cost in enforcement of a higher number of CI GI . The 
remaining Member State s will be able to choose whether to set up the ir own  system or to delegate 
application process to another Member State or allow for a direct application at the EU level. 
National authorities will be able (as is currently  in national systems ) to charge fees to CI GI applicants.  
At the EU level the European Union Intellectual Property Office  (EUIPO)  will handle the registration 
and management of CI GIs. All activities will be finance out of the EUIPO budget , thus creating no 
additional cost for the EU budget . There will be no fees at the EU level.  
For CI GI producers , application is free of charge at th e EU level, but national authorities may set up 
application fee s. EU fees may only be applicable when national authorities opt to apply for the 
“direct application” procedure, handled by EUIPO. There will be  no renewal or other maintenance 
fees. While regi stration should be free the producers will face costs connected to preparation of 
registration documents, control (limited due to self -certification approach) and enforcement (as part 
of private/public enforcement system, e.g.,  proactive screening for pote ntial infringements). These 
cost for a producer group are estimated on average at EUR  23,700 including EUR  15,000 for 
registration, EUR  5,700 for verification and control and EUR  3,000 for enforcement and management.  
(e) While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 
States been taken into account?   
The proposal considers  special circumstances in individual Member States, while respecting Union 
law. This effort is particularly reflected in the flexibilities offered t o Member states not having a 
specific protection system in place like the option to create a registration system whereby national 
authorities do not participate in the examination and registration, and local producers go directly 
either to another interest ed national competent authority or to the EU level (EUIPO) for registering 
their GIs (see above under 2.3 f).