Criminal proceedings against Jacques Pistre (C-321/94), Michèle Barthes (C-322/94), Yves Milhau (C-323/94) and Didier Oberti (C-324/94).
Date: 1997-05-07
35 As to those arguments, domestic legislation such as that in question in the main proceedings, which lays down conditions governing the use, for agricultural products and foodstuffs, of the description `mountain', cannot be regarded as covering a designation of origin or a geographical indication within the meaning of Regulation No 2081/92.  The description `mountain' is quite general in character and transcends national frontiers, whereas, according to Article 2 of Regulation No 2081/92, a direct link must exist between the quality or characteristics of the product and its specific geographical origin.
36 Nor, more generally, is the description `mountain' an indication of provenance as defined by the Court in its case-law on Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty.  According to that case-law, an indication of provenance is intended to inform the consumer that a product bearing such an indication comes from a particular place, region or country (judgment in Case C-3/91 Exportur [1992] ECR I-5529, paragraph 11).
39 As the Advocate General points out in paragraph 30 of his Opinion, although the name `Monts de Lacaune' is the name of a specific mountain area and could accordingly be registered under Regulation No 2081/92 if the links between the characteristics of the product in question and that area were to fulfil the requirements of the regulation, such links are not necessary for obtaining authorization to use that name under the French legislation in question.  In fact, that legislation, as can be seen, protects this type of geographical reference only in so far as the reference suggests `mountain origin', and not in so far as it relates to specific mountain areas.
40 It must therefore be held that Regulation No 2081/92 does not preclude application of domestic rules, such as those laid down by Article 34 of Law No 85-30 and Decree No 88-194, which lay down the conditions governing the use of the description `mountain' in relation to agricultural products or foodstuffs.
Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty
43 According to settled case-law (judgment in Case 8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5), the prohibition laid down in Article 30 of the Treaty covers all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade.
44 Accordingly, whilst the application of a national measure having no actual link to the importation of goods does not fall within the ambit of Article 30 of the Treaty (judgment in Case 286/81 Oosthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij [1982] ECR 4575, paragraph 9), Article 30 cannot be considered inapplicable simply because all the facts of the specific case before the national court are confined to a single Member State.
45 In such a situation, the application of the national measure may also have effects on the free movement of goods between Member States, in particular when the measure in question facilitates the marketing of goods of domestic origin to the detriment of imported goods.  In such circumstances, the application of the measure, even if restricted to domestic producers, in itself creates and maintains a difference of treatment between those two categories of goods, hindering, at least potentially, intra-Community trade.
49 Next, legislation such as that in question in the main proceedings discriminates against goods imported from other Member States in so far as it reserves use of the description `mountain' to products manufactured on national territory and made from domestic raw materials  (see, to this effect, the judgment in Case 13/78 Eggers [1978] ECR 1935, paragraph 25).
52 According to settled case-law, domestic legislation of that kind, since it is discriminatory in character, may be justified only on one of the grounds mentioned in Article 36 of the Treaty (see, to this effect, the judgment in Case 113/80 Commission v Ireland [1981] ECR 1625, paragraphs 8 and 11).
53 In the present case, the legislation concerned cannot be justified on any of the grounds listed in Article 36.  Of those grounds, only protection of industrial and commercial property, in the sense of protection of indications of provenance, could be relevant.  However, it is clear from paragraph 36 of this judgment that the description `mountain', as protected by the domestic legislation in question, cannot be characterized as an indication of provenance.