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
Date: 2022-04-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: World Intellectual Property Organisation, accession to an agreement, consumer information, craft production, designation of origin, industrial product, intellectual property, labelling, product designation, quality control of industrial products

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}  
 
 
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 for 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 falls under the 
subsidiarity  control  mechanism.  Article  4  TFEU[2]  sets  out  the  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  expectations  with  regard  to  a  possible  legal  protection  for  the  names  of 
geographically linked CI products. Then followed the results of a 2014 public consultation published 
in 2015, 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 indications 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  

1 

 
 
 
                                                           
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 proposal 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 the 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  for  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 by 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 on 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 
recognised; 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  hard  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 

2 

 
 
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 with core objectives of the Treaty4. In accordance 
with  Article  3  of  the  Treaty,  the  EU  aims  in  particular  at  establishing  an  internal  market,  promote 
economic, social, and territorial cohesion, and ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded 
and  enhanced.  However,  building  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  continuing  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  protect  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  interests  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 Lisbon 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, as only based on such registration would it become possible for them to seek protection in all 
countries 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 link, 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. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
titles  in  the  EU  public  and/or  to  mutually  recognise  a  national  decision  to  protect  a  GI  for  a 
specific CI product. 

-  However,  besides  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 to 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 problem 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  existing  EU  laws  not 
suitable) vary across the national, regional, and local levels of the EU. 

At  national  level,  the  lack of an  EU  protection  system  for  GIs  relating  to  CI  products  results  in  the 
impossibility  for  CI  producers  from  20  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 State 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  affects  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 the 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.  As  highlighted  in  Annex  5  of  the 
Impact assessment report, regions with CI GIs are today characterised with GDP per capita below 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, the 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 countries 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 across Member States affects 

4 

 
 
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 registration 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  exclude  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 objectives 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 level (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, Czechia, France, 
Hungary,  Italy,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia  and  Germany  expressed  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.  They  fear  that  a  new  sui  generis  system  would  be  too 
burdensome for public administrations and may increase the price of the product, and assume 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  benefit  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 

5 

 
 
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 heritage. 
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 functioning 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 the 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  Italy,  Germany  and  Belgium 
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  provides  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 of 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  GIs  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 products 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. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
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 trade 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 arise 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 was 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 
management  of  the  applications  of  geographical  indications  for  craft  and  industrial  products).  The 
other EU Member States will lose competence to grant the title at national level, however they will 
keep exclusive competence on scrutinizing 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  level,  only  an  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 registration 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 countries 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 proposal 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 identified 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? 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
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.  Also,  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  that  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, and 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 producers 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 coherent 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 contracting 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 or 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  already  mentioned  above  (under  3.2)  the 
proposed action is an appropriate way to achieve satisfactorily the intended objectives. 

8 

 
 
(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,  Slovakia  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 States will be able to choose whether to set up their 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 the EU level, but national authorities may set up 
application  fees.  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  registration  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  potential  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 to 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 interested national competent authority or to the EU level (EUIPO) for registering 
their GIs (see above under 2.3 f). 

9