Case C-465/02: Action brought on 30 December 2002 (faxed on 27 December 2002) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), cheese, designation of origin, location of production, product designation

8.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/11

Action brought on 30 December 2002 (faxed on
27 December 2002) by the Federal Republic of Germany
against the Commission of the European Communities

legislative provisions themselves and by the fact that the
Community makes provision for the grant of aid for the
manufacture of Feta on the Aegean islands.

(Case C-465/02)

(2003/C 55/19)

— Infringement of Council Regulation No 2081/92 and of

Article 253 EC.

(1) OJ 2002 L 277, p. 10.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities by the Federal Republic of Germany on
30 December 2002 (faxed on 27.12.2002), represented by
Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in the Bundesministerium
der Finanzen (Federal Finance Ministry), Alfred Dittrich, Minis-
terialrat in the Bundesministerium der Justiz (Federal Ministry
of Justice) and by Dr Michael Loschelder, c/o Loschelder
Rechtsanwälte, Hohenstaufenring 30-32 D-50674 Cologne.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 30 December 2002 by the Kingdom
of Denmark against the Commission of the European
Communities (received by fax on 23 December 2002)

(Case C-466/02)

(2003/C 55/20)

1. Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 (1) of
14 October 2002 amending the annex to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 in relation to the ‘Feta’
designation;

2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 30 December 2002 (received by fax on
23 December 2002) by the Kingdom of Denmark, represented
by J. Molde and J.B. Liisberg, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of the rules of procedure of the Regulatory
Committee and infringement of Regulation (EEC) No 1:
the documents for the meeting on 20 November 2001 of
the Regulatory Committee established under Article 15
of Council Regulation No 2081/92 on the protection of
geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs did not reach the
Federal German Government 14 calendar days before-
hand nor were they in German.

first

— Infringement of Article 2(3) of Council Regulation
No 2081/92: The Commission erroneously examines in
the recitals in the preamble to the contested regulation
whether ‘Feta’ has become a generic designation. Since
‘Feta’
is first of all a non-geographical concept, the
to have proved that it has
Commission ought
acquired a geographical meaning and indeed one that
does not refer to the whole of a Member State. The area
indicated by the Greek Government in its application is
quite plainly an artificial construct; unsupported by either
tradition or commercial conceptions. Nor does Feta owe
its quality or characteristics predominantly or exclusively
to geographical conditions; the Commission’s statements
in Recital 36 are supported neither by the Greek Govern-
ment’s application nor by the findings of the Scientific
Committee. Finally, the areas of production and manufac-
ture do not coincide, as is borne out both by the Greek

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 (1) of
14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation
(EC) No 1107/96 (2) with regard to the name ‘Feta’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Main)

The Commission adopted Regulation No 1829/2002 in con-
travention of Article 17(2), in conjunction with Article 3(1), of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3) (the basic regulation):

Denmark bases its arguments in this connection on the
following principles of interpretation:

— The prohibition of registration of generic designations
specifically reflects a number of fundamental principles
of Community law.

— This prohibition cannot be construed restrictively and
compliance with the prohibition must be subject to full
review by the Court.

— If a designation has become on one occasion/been from
the outset a generic designation, then it is for all time —
and irreversibly — a generic designation.