Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma and Salumificio S. Rita SpA v Asda Stores Ltd and Hygrade Foods Ltd.
Date: 2003-05-20
53.  It is settled case-law that the prohibition of quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect applies not only to national measures but also to measures adopted by the Community institutions (see,   inter alia  , Case C-114/96   Kieffer and Thill   [1997] ECR I-3629, paragraph 27, and Case C-169/99   Schwarzkopf   [2001] ECR I-5901, paragraph 37).
54.  Article 29 EC prohibits all measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade, in such a way as to provide a particular advantage for national production or for the domestic market of the State in question (see,   inter alia  , with respect to national measures, Case C-209/98   Sydhavnens Sten  & Grus   [2000] ECR I-3743, paragraph 34).
58.  Those rules thus have the specific effect of restricting patterns of exports of ham eligible for the PDO   "Prosciutto di Parma"   and thereby establishing a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade. They therefore introduce quantitative restrictions on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC (see, to that effect, Case C-388/95   Belgium   v   Spain   [2000] ECR I-3123, paragraphs 38 and 40 to 42).
59.  Accordingly, where the use of the PDO   "Prosciutto di Parma"   for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC.
Whether the condition that the product is sliced and packaged in the region of production is justified
63.  Community legislation displays a general tendency to enhance the quality of products within the framework of the common agricultural policy, in order to promote the reputation of those products through   inter alia   the use of designations of origin which enjoy special protection (see   Belgium   v   Spain  , paragraph 53). That tendency took the form in the quality wines sector of the adoption of Council Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 of 16 March 1987 laying down special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions (OJ 1987 L 84, p. 59), repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1). It was also manifested, in relation to other agricultural products, in the adoption of Regulation No 2081/92, which, according to its preamble, is intended   inter alia   to meet consumers' expectations as regards products of quality and an identifiable geographical origin and to enable producers, in conditions of fair competition, to secure higher incomes in return for a genuine effort to improve quality.
64.  Designations of origin fall within the scope of industrial and commercial property rights. The applicable rules protect those entitled to use them against improper use of those designations by third parties seeking to profit from the reputation which they have acquired. They are intended to guarantee that the product bearing them comes from a specified geographical area and displays certain particular characteristics. They may enjoy a high reputation amongst consumers and constitute for producers who fulfil the conditions for using them an essential means of attracting custom. The reputation of designations of origin depends on their image in the minds of consumers. That image in turn depends essentially on particular characteristics and more generally on the quality of the product. It is on the latter, ultimately, that the product's reputation is based (see   Belgium   v   Spain  , paragraphs 54 to 56). For consumers, the link between the reputation of the producers and the quality of the products also depends on his being assured that products sold under the designation of origin are authentic.
65.  The specification of the PDO   "Prosciutto di Parma"  , by requiring the slicing and packaging to be carried out in the region of production, is intended to allow the persons entitled to use the PDO to keep under their control one of the ways in which the product appears on the market. The condition it lays down aims better to safeguard the quality and authenticity of the product, and consequently the reputation of the PDO, for which those who are entitled to use it assume full and collective responsibility.
66.  Against that background, a condition such as at issue must be regarded as compatible with Community law despite its restrictive effects on trade if it is shown that it is necessary and proportionate and capable of upholding the reputation of the PDO   "Prosciutto di Parma"   (see, to that effect,   Belgium   v   Spain  , paragraphs 58 and 59).
69.  By the rules it lays down and the requirements of the national provisions to which it refers, the specification of the PDO   "Prosciutto di Parma"   establishes a set of detailed and strict rules regulating the three stages which lead to the placing on the market of prepackaged sliced ham. The first stage consists of boning the ham, making bricks, and refrigerating and freezing them for slicing. The second stage corresponds to the slicing operations. The third stage is the packaging of the sliced ham, under vacuum or protected atmosphere.
75.  In this context, it must be accepted that checks performed outside the region of production would provide fewer guarantees of the quality and authenticity of the product than checks carried out in the region of production in accordance with the procedure laid down in the specification (see, to that effect,   Belgium   v   Spain  , paragraph 67). First, checks performed in accordance with that procedure are thorough and systematic in nature and are done by experts who have specialised knowledge of the characteristics of Parma ham. Second, it is hardly conceivable that representatives of the persons entitled to use the PDO could effectively introduce such checks in other Member States.
76.  The risk to the quality and authenticity of the product finally offered to consumers is consequently greater where it has been sliced and packaged outside the region of production than when that has been done within the region (see, to that effect,   Belgium   v   Spain  , paragraph 74).
78.  Consequently, the condition of slicing and packaging in the region of production, whose aim is to preserve the reputation of Parma ham by strengthening control over its particular characteristics and its quality, may be regarded as justified as a measure protecting the PDO which may be used by all the operators concerned and is of decisive importance to them (see, to that effect,   Belgium   v   Spain  , paragraph 75).
80.  The PDO   "Prosciutto di Parma"   would not receive comparable protection from an obligation imposed on operators established outside the region of production to inform consumers, by means of appropriate labelling, that the slicing and packaging has taken place outside that region. Any deterioration in the quality or authenticity of ham sliced and packaged outside the region of production, resulting from materialisation of the risks associated with slicing and packaging, might harm the reputation of all ham marketed under the PDO   "Prosciutto di Parma"  , including that sliced and packaged in the region of production under the control of the group of producers entitled to use the PDO (see, to that effect,   Belgium   v   Spain  , paragraphs 76 and 77).
89.  Nevertheless, the requirement of legal certainty means that Community rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them (see Case C-209/96   United Kingdom   v   Commission   [1998] ECR I-5655, paragraph 35).
95.  In those circumstances, the principle of legal certainty required that the condition in question be brought to the knowledge of third parties by adequate publicity in Community legislation, which could have been done by mentioning that condition in Regulation No 1107/96.