Case C-135/05: Action brought on 23 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic
Date: 2005-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, unauthorised dumping, waste management

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/15

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Germany

(Case C-132/05)

(2005/C 132/28)

(Language of the case: German)

manufacturing of cheese in the particular region of origin in
Italy. As a result of the registration of the protected designation
of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, the geographical expressions
‘Parmigiano’ and ‘Reggiano’ enjoy Community-wide protection
not only individually, but also together.

According to the Commission, there are no valid reasons for
the Federal Republic of Germany's view that the expression
‘Parmigiano’ is, when used alone, to be regarded as a generic
name in the sense of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No
2081/92, which the consumer does not associate with a
specific geographical area.

An action against
the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 21 March 2005, by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Eugenio De March and Sabine
Grünheid, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

1. declare that, by formally refusing to prosecute, on its terri-
tory, the use of the name ‘Parmesan’ for the labelling of
products which do not conform to the specification of the
protected designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ and
thus, promoting the use of the reputation of the genuine,
Community-wide protected product, the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article
13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
1992 (1) on the protection of geographical indications and
designations of origin for agricultural products and food-
stuffs;

2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of

the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the opinion that the placing on the
market on German territory of cheese, under the designation
‘Parmesan’, which does not conform to the specification of the
designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ infringes Article 13(1)(b) of
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, which the German authorities
are obliged to prohibit of their own motion.

Since the designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’
is a registered
protected designation of origin on the ‘list of protected geogra-
phical indications and designations of origin’ since 1996 and is,
thus, protected Community-wide, the Member States have to
protect this name from any misuse,
imitation or evocation.
This is the case even if the real place of origin of the product is
stated or it is a translation of a protected name that is being
used.

‘Parmesan’

is a translation
The Commission contends that
‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
borrowed from the
‘Parmesan’ and ‘Parmigiano
According to the Commission,
Reggiano’ are synonymous, as evidenced by the history of the
origins of the protected name and proof in numerous reference
books, ranging from 1516 to the present, which refer to the

French for

the use of

follows from this that

Since it
the designation
‘Parmesan’ is reserved exclusively to producers in the specific
Italian region who produce cheese according to a mandatory
specification, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 by refusing to prohibit the misuse of the name
‘Parmesan’ on German territory.

(1) OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1.

Action brought on 23 March 2005 by Commission of the
European Communities against Italian Republic

(Case C-135/05)

(2005/C 132/29)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, of
its Legal
Service, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1)on
waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, (2) under
Article 2(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazar-
dous waste and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive
1999/31/EC (4) on the landfill of waste;

2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

C 132/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.5.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

On the basis of numerous documents, the Commission has
learned of the large number of tips in Italian territory operating
illegally and without control by the public authorities, some of
which contain hazardous waste,

The Commission considers that while it tolerates the presence
of such tips, the Italian Republic is infringing its obligations
under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on
waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, and under Articles
2(1) of Council Directive 912/689/EEC on hazardous waste.

As regards the tips existing as at 16 July 2991, with permits or
already functioning by that date, the lack of information on the
reorganisation plans which the managers of such tips should
have submitted by 16 July 2002 prompts the Commission to
such reorganisation plans and the relevant
consider
authorisation measures and measures for the possible closure
of tips not meeting the requirements of the directive are non-
existent.

that

The Commission considers therefore that the Italian Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(a), (b) and (c)
of Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(3) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(4) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.

Action brought on 24 March 2005 by United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland against Council of the
European Union

(Case C-137/05)

(2005/C 132/30)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 24 March 2005 by United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, represented by C.
Jackson, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

1. annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13
December 2004 on standards for security features and
biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by
Member States (1);

2. determine, pursuant to Article 231 EC, that, following the
annulment of the Passports Regulation, and pending the
adoption of new legislation in this matter, the provisions of
the Passports Regulation should remain effective, except in
so far as they have the effect of excluding the United
Kingdom from participating in the application of the Pass-
port Regulation;

3. order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The United Kingdom was denied the right to take part in
the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of
13 December 2004 on standards for security features and
biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by
Member States (the Passport Regulation) despite having
given notice of its wish to do so pursuant to Article 5(1) of
the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the frame-
work of the European Union (the Schengen Protocol) and to
Article 3(1) of the Protocol on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland. The annulment of the Passports Regu-
lation is sought on the grounds that the exclusion of the
United Kingdom from its adoption entails the infringement
of an essential procedural requirement and/or the infringe-
ment of the Treaty, within the meaning of Article 230,
second paragraph, EC.

2. The main contention of the United Kingdom is that, in so
excluding it from the adoption of the Passports Regulation,
the Council acted on the basis of an erroneous interpreta-
tion of the relationship between Article 5 and Article 4 of
the Schengen Protocol. It is contended more particularly as
follows:

(a) The Council's interpretation, according to which the
the
right of participation conferred by Article 5 of
Schengen Protocol applies only to measures building on
provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United
Kingdom participates pursuant to a Council decision
adopted on the basis of Article 4, is contradicted by the
structure and language of those Articles, by the very
nature of the Article 5 mechanism, and by the Declara-
tion on Article 5 that was annexed to the Final Act of
the Treaty of Amsterdam.

(b) The Council's interpretation of Article 5 of the Schengen
Protocol is not required to enable the ‘without prejudice’
rule in Article 7 of the Protocol on the Position of the
United Kingdom and Ireland to have useful effect. Nor is
such an interpretation required to preserve the integrity
of the Schengen acquis.
Indeed, as a means of safe-
guarding the acquis, its adverse impact on the United
Kingdom would be grossly disproportionate.