Action brought on 08 February 2024 – Independent Farmers Organisation of Ireland v Commission
(Case T-62/24)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Independent Farmers Organisation of Ireland Ltd (Drumdigus, Ireland) (represented by: B. Burns, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2666 of 22 November 2023, entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Irish Grass Fed Beef’ (PGI)), published in the Official Journal of the European Union; 1
order that the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 1 are invalid insofar as they failed to allow effective participation by the applicant in the registration of the PG I herein;
order that the defendant pay the costs of the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard.
It is alleged that the applicant’s right to be heard was not respected, in breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
In breach of its right to be heard, the applicant maintains that it was deprived of any opportunity to be heard and have its views considered on the joint application from Ireland and United Kingdom (Northern Ireland).
Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 of 18 December 2013 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. 1
Article 4 provides: ‘In case of joint applications as referred to in Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the related national opposition procedures shall be carried out in all the Member States concerned.’
It is alleged that these provisions were not adhered to and the applicant was deprived of any opportunity to be heard on the joint application from Ireland and United Kingdom (Northern Ireland).
Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration in deeming the new application as a substantial amendment.
It is argued that the Commission erred in law and fact by completing the registration (without an opportunity for further opposition at a national level) in circumstances where the application was in reality a new, joint application but where the national opposition procedure had been conducted only in the Member State from which the original application emanated and that national opposition procedure was conducted only in respect of the original application.
By reason of the breach, the applicant was deprived of the procedure and opportunity of making an objection to the joint application from/including a third country.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging the illegality of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
Insofar as Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 allows for entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (“Irish Grass Fed Beef” (PGI)) in the circumstances arising here, the same is invalid insofar as it breached the applicant’s right to be heard and to effectively participate in the designation process.
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging an effect on applicant
The registration of the PGI is of direct concern to the applicant organisation and its members, and prejudicial to their interests, which said registration does not entail an implementing measure.
____________
1 OJ L 2023/2666.
1 Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).
1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 of 18 December 2013 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the establishment of the Union symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules (OJ 2014 L 179, p. 17).