CELEX: C1996/336/33
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 12 September 1996 by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-299/96)

9 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 336/ 17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                Action brought on 12 September 1996 by the French
Genova by an order of that court of 5 July 1996 in the case           Republic against the Commission of the European
pending before it between Società Corsica Ferries France                                          Communities
and 1 . Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova 2 .                                    ( Case C-299/96 )
Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia 3 . Ministero
                                                                                                 ( 96/C 336/33 )
               dei Trasporti e della Navigazione
                        ( Case C-266/96
                          ( 96/C 336/32 )                             An action against the Commission was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                      12 September 1996 by the French Republic, represented by
                                                                      Catherine de Salins and Gautier Mignot, acting as Agents,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French
European Communities by order of the Tribunale ( District             Embassy, 9 Boulevard du Prince Henri .
Court ), Genoa, of 5 July 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 2 August 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in
the case pending before it between Societa Corsica Ferries            The applicant claims that the Court should :
France and 1 . Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di
Genova 2 . Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia 3 .             — annul the registration of ' feta ' as a protected designation
Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione on the                        of origin in Part A of the Annex to Commission
following questions :                                                     Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 ( 1 ) of 12 June 1996 ,
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
1 . Must Article 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
     precluding legislation and/or administrative practice in a
     Member State which debars shipping companies                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     established in other Member States from berthing their
     vessels on entry to docks in the first-mentioned State, or       Infringement of Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
     unmooring those vessels on departure, unless they use            No 2081 /92 ( 2 ) of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
     the services provided by a local undertaking by virtue of        geographical indications and designations of origin for
     its exclusive concession in respect of berthing and              agricultural products and foodstuffs :
     unmooring facilities, which entails paying to that
     undertaking dues which may not be commensurate with              — the name ' feta ' does not fulfil the criteria laid down by
     the actual cost of the services provided ?                           Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 for the
                                                                          registration of a name as a protected designation of
                                                                          origin : the term ' feta ' does not refer in any way to the
2 . Does Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of                         name of a region or a specific place in Greece, nor to the
     22 December 1 986 ( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 59 of            name of that country ( Article 2 ( 2 )). Nor is it a
     the Treaty preclude the imposition in a Member State of              traditional name designating an agricultural product or
     a requirement whereby berthing services are obligatory               a foodstuff originating in a region or a specific place
     and shipping companies established in another Member                 ( Article 2 ( 3 )). Feta has in fact never been exclusively
     State are charged tariffs which are fixed not by law but             produced in a region or specific place within the Hellenic
     merely by administrative discretion in respect of the                Republic, but was traditionally known by the name
     arrival or departure of their vessels in or from the                 'telemea' in Romania and northern Greece and by the
     first-mentioned Member State ?
                                                                          name 'touloumootyri ' in southern Greece before being
                                                                          designated by the generic term ' feta', originating from
                                                                          the Italian . It was not until 1987 that the Hellenic
3 . Do Articles 3 , 5 , 90 ( 1 ), 85 and 86 of the Treaty, in
                                                                          Republic laid down various characteristics with regard
     conjunction, preclude legislation and/or administrative
                                                                          to the method of manufacturing feta and its
     practice in a Member State which confers on an
                                                                          composition, as well as its origin. Ultimately, the
     undertaking established in that State an exclusive right
                                                                          designation of origin ' feta ' was recognized by a 1994
     to provide berthing services such as to enable those
                                                                          decree, the zones authorized to produce feta being
     services to be made compulsory, dues to be charged
                                                                          restricted to most of the territory of the Hellenic
     which may not be commensurate with the actual cost of
                                                                          Republic and almost all of its mainland territory . The
     the services provided, tariffs to be applied which have
                                                                          applicant further states, in the alternative, that feta does
     been determined by agreement and/or administrative                   not essentially owe its quality or characteristics to the
     discretion, and tariff conditions to be imposed which
                                                                          geographical location of the regions in which it is
     vary from one port to another, even for like services ?
                                                                          produced in Greece,
(') OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                      — the name ' feta ' may in fact be seen as a generic name
                                                                          designating a type of cheese . Whilst the name ' feta '
                                                                          undeniably has specifically Greek connotations for
                                                                          consumers in that country, it does not evoke any
                                                                          specifically Greek origin . As regards the situation in the
                                                                          other Member States, feta has for several decades been
 ---pagebreak--- No C 336/ 18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 11 . 96
       produced in various Member States and is the subject of            Action brought on 16 September 1996 by the Federal
       significant intra-Community trade; the production                  Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
       volume has for some years been comparable to, if not                                  European Communities
       higher than , that in Greece; feta consumption primarily                                  ( Case C-301 /96 )
       involves feta produced outside Greece . Lastly, feta is
                                                                                                   ( 96/C 336/35 )
       subject to long-standing rules in several Member States,
       dating from before the introduction of the Greek rules,            An action against the Commission of the European
       and the name 'feta ' features in various Community acts            Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       adopted since 1975 , without being reserved to a product           European Communities on 16 September 1996 by the
       of Greek origin .                                                  Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
                                                                          Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of the Economy
 ( ! ) Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 of 12 July 1996 on the registration   D-53107, and Thomas Oppermann , of the University of
       of geographical indications and designations of origin under the   Tubingen, acting as Agents .
       procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
       No 2081 /92 ( OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p. 1 ).                The applicant claims that the Court should :
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                          — annul Article 2 of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of
                                                                              26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the
                                                                              Volkswagen group for its Mosel and Chemnitz factories;
                                                                              furthermore, annul Article 1 of that decision to the
                                                                              extent that it limits the amounts declared to be
                                                                              compatible with the common market to DM 418,7
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig­                        million for direct investment grants and DM 120,4
Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht by order of that court of                   million for investment premiums,
22 April 1996 in the case of Erika Reimer v. Amt fur Land­               — annul Article 3 ( 2 ) of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of
                  und Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg                              26 June 1996 in so far as it provides that the combined
                           ( Case C-300/96 )                                  effective aid intensity, expressed as gross grant
                             ( 96/C 336/34 )                                  equivalent, must not exceed 22,3 % for Mosel II or
                                                                              20,8 % for Chemnitz II, and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
European Communities by order of the Schleswig­                               proceedings .
Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht ( Schleswig-Holstein
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Administrative Court ) of 22 April 1996 , which was received
at the Court Registry on 16 September 1996 , for a                        Infringement of the Treaty and breach of essential
preliminary ruling in the case of Erika Reimer v. Amt fur                procedural requirements:
Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg on the following
questions :
                                                                         — the provision in Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty
                                                                              concerning the division of Germany is an exception by
                                                                              operation of law from the basic prohibition of aid
( a ) Is the second subparagraph of Article 9 ( 2 ) of                        contained in Article 92 ( 1 ), whereas the exceptions
        Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 of                           under Article 92 ( 3 ) are optional . In cases of aid falling
        23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for                       under Article 92 ( 2 ), the procedure under Article 93 ( 3 )
        applying the integrated administration and control                    is confined to examining whether the factual criteria are
        system for certain Community aid schemes ( ] ) [as it                 met — namely, in the particular case of Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ),
        stood before the entry into force of Commission
                                                                              whether there are disadvantages caused by division and
        Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995 amending                  whether aid is required to compensate for them . The
        Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92], which excludes a                      applicant alleges breach of the obligation to state
        farmer from any area-linked payment whatever where                    reasons laid down in Article 1 90 of the EC Treaty, in that
        the area actually determined for a particular crop is                 the Commission deliberately failed to deal with the
        found to be less than that declared in his aid application
                                                                              provision concerning division, and breach of the
        if the difference is more than 20% , even where the
                                                                              principle that action must not be unreasonable or
        discrepancy is not intentional or the result of serious               disproportionate, in that the Commission adopted the
        negligence but merely of minor negligence, compatible                 contested decision on the basis of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) in
        with the principle of proportionality in Community                    accordance with the discretionary criteria of the
        law ?
                                                                              Community framework on State aid to the motor vehicle
                                                                              industry,
( b ) If not, how is the second subparagraph of Article 9 ( 2 )
        of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 [as it stood before the         — the contested decision is contrary to Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of
        entry into force of Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 ] to be              the Treaty, relating to the division of Germany. General
        interpreted in such cases ?                                           principles of interpretation apply to that provision.
                                                                              Consequently, alongside the principle that factors giving
(!) OJ No L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 36 .
                                                                              rise to an exemption are to be construed narrowly,
                                                                              which the Commission has stated in formal terms, the
                                                                              principle that rules of Community law are to be
                                                                              interpreted meaningfully must in particular be observed;