Case T-383/24: Action brought on 24 July 2024 – MNFPUGs Sustainable Cashmere v Commission
Date: 2024-07-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Mongolia, Taric, designation of origin, labelling, natural fibre, principle of legal certainty, product designation, tariff nomenclature, wool








C_202405506EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5506


23.9.2024






Action brought on 24 July 2024 – MNFPUGs Sustainable Cashmere v Commission


(Case T-383/24)

(C/2024/5506)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MNFPUGs Sustainable Cashmere Market Place Srl (Como, Italy) (represented by: D. Luff and M. Ledwos, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1224 of 30 April 2024 rejecting an application for protection of a geographical indication of the name ‘Mongol Togtvortoi Nooluur’ submitted by MNFPUGs Sustainable Cashmere Srl based on Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012; (1)











—


Order that the Commission pay the applicant’s costs of this application.





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 Commission violated Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 by wrongfully referring to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 (2) (‘the TARIC Regulation’) in the interpretation of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.






—


Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 provides that the protection of geographical indications can be granted to the products listed in Annex I of Regulation (EU) 1151/2012. The products concerned are ‘closely linked to agricultural products or to the rural economy.’ Annex I to Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 includes wool (class 2.15: wool).










—


The Commission rejected the applicant’s application for a geographical indication of the name ‘Mongol Togtvortoi Nooluur’ for carded-dehaired cashmere wool on the basis that such product does not qualify as ‘wool’. To assess if the word ‘wool’ covers ‘cashmere wool’ fibre, the Commission referred to the TARIC Regulation.










—


The Commission committed a manifest error of law and a misuse of powers by improperly referencing to the TARIC Regulation to interpret the scope of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 by manifestly erring in its assessment of the facts and by improperly exercising its powers in refusing to consider cashmere wool as a quality of wool.






—


The applicant submitted its application to the Commission for protection of a geographical indication of the name ‘Mongol Togtvortoi Nooluur’ for carded-dehaired cashmere wool. In its application, the applicant identified the product concerned as a kind of ‘wool’ as provided in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014, (3) since dehaired-carded ‘cashmere wool’ is clearly a kind of ‘wool’ in its common sense.










—


In its Decision, the Commission has not correctly considered the product concerned. It has also misunderstood that ‘cashmere wool’ is a kind of ‘wool’ understood in its common sense. The Commission not only misinterpreted Regulation No 1151/2012, but it also made a manifest error in its assessment of the facts regarding the product subject to the application.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements by breaching the principle of sound administration and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and in particular the duty of procedural loyalty and the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.






—


The Commission unduly led the applicant to believe a protection for a geographical indication of dehaired-carded cashmere wool was possible under Regulation No 1151/2012. Then the Commission unexpectedly proposed to reject the application, based on a surprising interpretative method, and it delayed its administrative review of the applicant’s observations beyond reason. The Commission’s overall handling of the application raises legitimate doubts about the Commission’s impartiality regarding the geographical indication to be protected. The applicant considers this is not consistent with the duty of procedural loyalty, and the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. This breaches the principle of sound administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










(1)  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).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

(3)  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.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5506/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)