Assica — Associazione Industriali delle Carni e dei Salumi and Kraft Foods Italia SpA v Associazioni fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others.
Date: 2014-05-08
19. In that regard, it is apparent from settled case-law that in proceedings under Article 267 TFEU, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court (Case C‑415/11 Aziz  EU:C:2013:164, paragraph 34).
20. Accordingly, where a request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation or validity of EU law, the Court may refuse to rule on such a request only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it ( Aziz EU:C:2013:164, paragraph 35).
26. However, as is apparent from the twelfth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2081/92 and Article 13(1) thereof, in order to enjoy the protection provided for by it, that regulation introduced an obligation to obtain Community registration of geographical designations (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑129/97 and C‑130/97 Chiciak and Fol  EU:C:1998:274, paragraphs 25 and 26).
28. As regards, next, the set of rules to be applied in the market of a Member State, it is apparent from the case-law that whilst the aim of Regulation No 2081/92 is to provide a uniform and exhaustive system of protection (see Case C‑478/07 Budějovický Budvar  EU:C:2009:521, paragraph 114), that exclusivity does not preclude, however, the application of rules governing the protection of geographical designations which fall outside its scope (see, to that effect, Case C‑312/98 Warsteiner Brauerei  EU:C:2000:599, paragraph 54).
29. In that regard, it is apparent from the ninth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2081/92 and Article 2(2)(b) thereof that the rules on protection laid down by that provision cover only designations relating to products for which there is a specific link between their characteristics and their geographical origin (see, to that effect, Case C‑216/01 Budějovický Budvar  EU:C:2003:618, paragraph 76).
30. Accordingly, designations of geographical origin serving only to highlight the geographical origin of a product, regardless of its particular characteristics, do not fall within the scope of Regulation No 2081/92 (see, to that effect, Warsteiner Brauerei  EU:C:2000:599, paragraph 44).
33. If the national court reaches the conclusion that the aim of that set of rules is to protect geographical designations relating to products for which there is no specific link between their characteristics and their geographical origin, it should be noted that, for such a set of rules to be applicable, it must comply with the requirements imposed by EU law. In that regard, two conditions must be met, namely, first, its application must not undermine the objectives of Regulation No 2081/92 (see, to that effect, Warsteiner Brauerei  EU:C:2000:599, paragraph 49) and, secondly, it must not contravene the principle of the free movement of goods referred to in Article 28 EC (see, inter alia, to that effect, Budějovický Budvar  EU:C:2003:618, paragraphs 95 to 97).
35. As regards the second condition, it must be pointed out that a national set of rules for the protection of designations, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, even when applied to both domestic products and those imported into the territory of the State concerned, is liable to promote the marketing of products of domestic origin to the detriment of imported products (Joined Cases C‑321/94 to C‑324/94 Pistre and Others  EU:C:1997:229, paragraph 45).
37. Whilst such a restriction may be justified by the overriding public-interest requirement of protecting fair competition or that of protecting consumers (see, inter alia, to that effect, Budějovický Budvar  EU:C:2003:618, paragraph 109), a given set of national rules, in order to be compatible with EU law, must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner, be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective (Case C‑500/06 Corporación Dermoestética  EU:C:2008:421, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).