Case T‑113/11

Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV

v

European Commission

(Action for annulment — Registration of a protected geographical indication — ‘Gouda Holland’ — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

Summary — Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 3 September 2014

1.      Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation on the entry of certain designations in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications — Protection of the geographical indication ‘Gouda Holland’ — Action by a group of manufacturers and distributors of Gouda — Members of the group not themselves having locus standi — Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation No 1122/2010)

2.      Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Interest relating to future and uncertain situations — Not included

(Art. 263 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 1122/2010)

3.      Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation No 510/2006 — Natural or legal persons established or resident in a Member State not entitled to lodge an objection to an application for registration of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication directly with the Commission

(Council Regulation No 510/2006, Art. 7(1) and (2))

1.      An association cannot in principle bring an action for annulment unless it can claim certain special circumstances, inter alia of a procedural nature, or unless the members which it represents or some of those members are in a position to bring an admissible action. The action must be likely, by its result, to procure an advantage for the party which brought it. Moreover, the condition laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, that a natural or legal person must be directly concerned by the decision being challenged, requires inter alia that the contested measure must directly affect the legal situation of the individual.

That is not the case with an action by a group of Gouda manufacturers and distributors against Regulation No 1122/2010, entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Gouda Holland (PGI)]. Since that regulation clearly states that the word ‘Gouda’ may continue to be used, annulment of the contested regulation would not be of any advantage to the applicant’s members. Moreover, since Regulation No 1122/2010 provides that the name ‘Gouda’ may continue to be used for the marketing of cheeses, that regulation does not directly affect the legal situation of that group’s members.

Similarly, with regard to the argument that that regulation entails a risk that certain packaging including the word ‘Gouda’, used with illustrations alluding to the Netherlands, might be regarded as contrary to Regulation No 510/2006, on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, the annulment of Regulation No 1122/2010 would not be of any advantage to the group’s members, in so far as such annulment would not remove the obligation that exists under EU law not to mislead consumers as to the origin or provenance of food.

Finally, no unfavourable effect of Regulation No 1122/2010 on the legal position of the group’s members can be inferred from the fact that producers who are entitled to use the quality label for the protected geographical indication ‘Gouda Holland’ have a competitive advantage. The regulation is intended not to abolish a right held by the group’s members, but to grant a new right to all operators, including the group’s members if they so wish, whose products comply with the specification set out in that regulation.

(see paras 18, 22, 24, 29-31, 38, 43, 45)

2.      An interest in bringing proceedings in an annulment action can result from a genuine risk that the applicant’s legal position will be affected by legal proceedings or where the risk of legal proceedings was vested and present at the date on which the action was brought. However, since a party cannot rely on future and uncertain situations to justify its interest in seeking the annulment of the contested measure, an argument that Regulation No 1122/2010 would expose the members of a group of Gouda manufacturers and distributors to the risk of prosecution for using the word ‘Gouda’ must be rejected in the absence of proof that the alleged risk is genuine or current at the date when the action before the EU judicature was brought.

(see paras 32-34)

3.      It follows from Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 510/2006 that natural or legal persons having a legitimate interest and being established or resident in a Member State are not entitled to lodge an objection to an application for registration of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication directly with the Commission.

(see para. 42)