Case T-377/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Papouis Dairies and Others v Commission
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, consumer information, designation of origin, goats’ milk cheese, labelling, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, semi-soft cheese, sheep's milk cheese








C_2023329EN.01002701.xml










18.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/27






Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Papouis Dairies and Others v Commission
(Case T-377/23)
(2023/C 329/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus), Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia LTD (Latsia, Cyprus), Pagkýpria Orgánosi Ageladotrófon (Nicosia), Neomax Sales SRL (Bucureşti, Romania) and FFF Fine Foods Pty Ltd (Belmore, Australia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/591 (1), of 12 April 2021, entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (PDO)) as modified by the Publication of an approved standard amendment to a product specification of a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication in the sector of agricultural products and foodstuffs, as referred to in Article 6b(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 (2) (OJ 2023, C 165, p. 14), considering also the previous publications of approved standard amendments (OJ 2022, C 407, p. 11) and (OJ 2023, C 53, p. 5);










—


in the alternative, annul the Publication of an approved standard amendment to a product specification of a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication in the sector of agricultural products and foodstuffs, as referred to in Article 6b(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014; and,










—


order the Commission to pay the legal costs of the applicants.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed a procedural error and manifest error of assessment on the conformity of the product specification of the PDO ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’, as resulting from the three amendments approved, with Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (3). Infringement of Articles 49, 50, 52 and 54 of Regulation No 1151/2012, read in conjunction with Articles 5(1), 7(1) and 8(1) of the same Regulation. Breach of the principle of sound administration and breach of essential procedural requirements.






—


The resulting PDO specification does not meet the requirements of the Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 because the link between the quality or characteristics of the product and the geographical environment, as justified in the application, has been annulled.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed a procedural error and manifest error of assessment on the conformity of the published communication of an approved standard amendment to a product specification of the PDO ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (OJEU of 10.5.2023) with Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Infringement of Articles 53(2), 7 and 8 of Regulation No 1151/2012, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of the same Regulation. Failure of the Commission to properly scrutinise the amendment of the specification which annuls the geographical link as justified in the specification.






—


The approved amendment published by the Commission voids the link between the quality or characteristics of the product and the geographical environment, as it was justified in the application.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed a procedural error and manifest error of assessment on the conformity of the published communication of an approved standard amendment to a product specification of a PDO (OJEU of 10.5.2023) with Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Infringement of Articles 53(2) and 7 of Regulation No 1151/2012, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of the same Regulation, and with Articles 6a and 6b of Delegated Regulation No 664/2014 and with Article 10a(1)(b) of Implementing regulation No 668/2014 (4). Failure of the Commission to detect that the amendment was not standard.






—


The Commission should have detected that the approved amendment was not a standard amendment, but an amendment of the Union, and, consequently, rejected the publication of the amendment.










(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/591 of 12 April 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (PDO)) (OJ 2021, L 125, p. 42).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 of 18 December 2013 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the establishment of the Union symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules (OJ 2014, L 179, p. 17).

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012, L 343, p. 1).

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2014, L 179, p. 36)