CELEX: C1999/188/04
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 16 March 1999 in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96: Kingdom of Denmark (C-289/96), Federal Republic of Germany (Case C- 293/96) and French Republic (C-299/96) v Commission of the European Communities (Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 - Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 - Registration of geographical indications and designations of origin - 'Feta')

C 188/2                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           3.7.1999
— Sixth Chamber                                                               — shares a common origin with that product in that it has been
                                                                                  manufactured by the same company or by an associated
    President: Mr Kapteyn                                                         undertaking or under licence according to the same formu-
                                                                                  lation,
    Judge Mancini, Judge Hirsch, Judge Schintgen, Judge Skour-
    is, Judge Murray and Judge Ragnemalm.                                     — was manufactured using the same active ingredient, and
                                                                              — also has the same effect with due regard to differences which
                                                                                  may exist in conditions relating to agriculture, plant health
(1) OJ C 299 of 26 September 1998, p. 1.                                          and environment, and in particular climatic conditions,
                                                                                  relevant to the use of the product,
                                                                              that product must be able to benefit from the marketing
                                                                              authorisation already granted in the Member State of import-
                                                                              ation, unless that is precluded by considerations concerning the
                                                                              protection of human and animal health and of the environment.
                                                                         2. The competent authority of one Member State may grant
                                                                              marketing authorisation for a plant protection product importet
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         from a third country which is not already covered by marketing
                                                                              authorisation granted in accordance with the provisions of
                                                                              Directive 91/414 in another Member State, only under the
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                      conditions laid down by that directive.
                        of 11 March 1999                                 (1) JO No C 145 of 18.5.1996.
in Case C-100/96 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division]: The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture,
                      Fisheries and Food (1)
                                                                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Marketing authorisation — Plant protection product
imported from an EEA State or a third country — Identical
to a plant protection product already authorised by the                                           of 16 March 1999
Member State of importation — Assessment of identical
        nature — Member States’ power of assessment)                     in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96:
                                                                         Kingdom of Denmark (C-289/96), Federal Republic of
                                                                         Germany (Case C- 293/96) and French Republic (C-
                         (1999/C 188/03)                                  299/96) v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 — Commission Regu-
                   (Language of the case: English)                       lation (EC) No 1107/96 — Registration of geographical
                                                                                 indications and designations of origin — ‘Feta’)
In Case C-100/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                       (1999/C 188/04)
the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice (England &
Wales) Queen’s Bench Division (United Kingdom) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                         (Language of the case: Danish, German and French)
court between The Queen and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food, ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd, on
the interpretation of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on                                  in the European Court Reports)
the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber;                   In Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96: Kingdom
G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                    of Denmark (C-289/96) (Agent: P. Biering), Federal Republic
R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louter-             of Germany (C-293/96) (Agents: E. Röder and A. Dittrich) and
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              French Republic (C-299/96) (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and
given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it has ruled:                G. Mignot) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         [Agents: (C-289/96) J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. Støvlbæk,
1. Where the competent authority of a Member State finds that a          (C-293/96) J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and U. Wölker, (C-299/96)
    plant protection product imported from an EEA State in which         J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and G. Berscheid], supported by Hellenic
    it is already covered by marketing authorisation granted in          Republic [Agents: D. Papageorgopoulos (C-293/96), I. Chalkias
    accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991         (C-289/96 and C-299/96) and I. Galani-Maragkoudaki
    concerning the placing of plant protection products on the           (C-289/96), C- 293/96 and C-299/96] — application for
    market, if not identical in all respects to a product already        annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
    authorised within the Member State of importation, at least          12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
 ---pagebreak--- 3.7.1999                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 188/3
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in                  and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, G.F. Mancini,
Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1996                   C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,
L 148, p. 1) in so far as it registers the designation ‘Feta’ as a           L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger,
protected designation of origin — the Court, composed of                     Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and           trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March
P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de              1999, in which it has ruled:
Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnem-
alm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                    The third case mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March 1999 in                   of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
which it:                                                                    and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,
                                                                             as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession
1. Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June                   of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
     1996 on the registration of geographical indications and                Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, is to be interpreted as follows:
     designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17
     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 to the extent to which           1. The contracting parties’ consent to the jurisdiction clause is
     it registered Feta as a protected designation of origin;                    presumed to exist where their conduct is consistent with a usage
                                                                                 which governs the area of international trade or commerce in
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the                  which they operate and of which they are, or ought to have been,
     costs;                                                                      aware.
3. Orders the Hellenic republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                             2. The existence of a usage, which must be determined in relation
                                                                                 to the branch of trade or commerce in which the parties to the
(1) OJ No C 318 of 26.10.1996, OJ No C 336 of 9.11.1996.                         contract operate, is established where a particular course of
                                                                                 conduct is generally and regularly followed by operators in that
                                                                                 branch when concluding contracts of a particular type.
                                                                                 It is not necessary for such a course of conduct to be established
                                                                                 in specific countries or, in particular, in all the Contracting
                                                                                 States.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                 A specific form of publicity cannot be required in all cases.
                           of 16 March 1999
                                                                                 The fact that a course of conduct amounting to a usage is
in Case C-159/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        challenged before the courts is not sufficient to cause the conduct
the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Trasporti Castelletti                          no longer to constitute a usage.
  Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v Hugo Trumpy SpA (1)
                                                                             3. The specific requirements covered by the expression "form which
(Brussels Convention — Article 17 — Agreement conferring                         accords" must be assessed solely in the light of the commercial
jurisdiction — Form according with usages in international                       usages of the branch of international trade or commerce
                          trade or commerce)                                     concerned, without taking into account any particular require-
                                                                                 ments which national provisions might lay down.
                            (1999/C 188/05)
                                                                             4. Awareness of the usage must be assessed with respect to the
                                                                                 original parties to the agreement conferring jurisdiction, their
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                            nationality being irrelevant in this regard. Awareness of the
                                                                                 usage will be established when, regardless of any specific form of
                                                                                 publicity, in the branch of trade or commerce in which the parties
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           operate a particular course of conduct is generally and regularly
                     in the European Court Reports)                              followed in the conclusion of a particular type of contract, so that
                                                                                 it may be regarded as an established usage.
In Case C-159/97: reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of              5. The choice of court in a jurisdiction clause may be assessed only
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                      in the light of considerations connected with the requirements
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                         laid down in Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September
from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of                           1968. Considerations about the links between the court desig-
Cassation), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   nated and the relationship at issue, about the validity of the
pending before that court between Trasporti Castelletti Spedi-                   clause, or about the substantive rules of liability applicable before
zioni Internazionali SpA and Hugo Trumpy SpA — on the                            the chosen court are unconnected with those requirements.
interpretation of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September
1968, cited above (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                         (1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1;
amended version of the Convention at p. 77) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn