Case C-132/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Parmigiano Reggiano cheese — Use of the name Parmesan — Obligation on a Member State to proceed on its own initiative against the abuse of a protected designation of origin)
Date: 2008-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, designation of origin, hard cheese, labelling

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February
the European Communities v
2008 — Commission of

Germany

(Case C-132/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Protection of geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin for agricultural products
and foodstuffs — ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese — Use of the
name ‘Parmesan’ — Obligation on a Member State to proceed
on its own initiative against the abuse of a protected designa-
tion of origin)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 Febru-
ary 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Tele2 Telecommuni-
cation GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission

(Case C-426/05) (1)

(Electronic communications — Networks and services —
Common regulatory framework — Articles 4 and 16 of Direc-
tive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) — Appeals —
Administrative market analysis procedure)

(2008/C 92/03)

Language of the case: German

(2008/C 92/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Referring court

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. de March, S. Grünheid and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented
(represented by: I. M.
by: T. Boček, Agent), Italian Republic,
Braguglia, Agent and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M.
Lumma,
Loschelder,
Rechtsanwalt)

and A. Dittrich, Agents

and M.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH

Defendant: Telekom-Control-Kommission

Interveners in support of
the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark
(represented by: J. Molde, Agent), Republic of Austria (repre-
sented by: E. Riedl, Agent)

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
(OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — Lack of measures prohibiting the use
of the name ‘Parmesan’ for products which do not comply with
the
the protected designation of origin
specification for
‘Parmigiano Reggiano’

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof —
Interpretation of Articles 4(1)
and 16(3) of Directive
2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for elec-
tronic communications networks and services
(Framework
Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Market analysis proceed-
ings — Meaning of person ‘affected’ or ‘concerned’ (‘betroffen’)
— National legislation that only an undertaking to which the
decision imposing, amending or withdrawing specific regulatory
obligations is addressed has the capacity of ‘party affected’, to
the exclusion of competitors

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Italian

Republic and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

Operative part of the judgment

1) The terms user ‘affected’ or undertaking ‘affected’ for the purposes
the European
of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of
Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common
regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and
services (Framework Directive) and the term party ‘affected’ within
the meaning of Article 16(3) of that directive must be interpreted
as being applicable not only to an undertaking (formerly) having
significant power on the relevant market which is subject to a deci-
sion of a national regulatory authority taken in the context of a
market analysis procedure referred to in Article 16 of that directive
and which is the addressee of that decision, but also to users and
undertakings in competition with such an undertaking which are
not themselves addressees of that decision but the rights of which
are adversely affected by it;