Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG and six other undertakings against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-370/02)
Language of the Case: German
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG, established in Lehen/Pfaffing (Germany), Bayerland eG, established in Nuremberg (Germany), Bergpracht-Milchwerk GmbH & Co, established in Tettnang (Germany), Hochland AG, established in Heimenkirch (Germany), Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG, established in Lauben (Germany), Milchwerk Crailsheim-Dinkelsbühl eG, established in Crailsheim (Germany) and Rücker GmbH, established in Aurich (Germany), represented by J. Salzwedel and M.J. Werner, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
(annul the inclusion, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name "Feta", of the name "Feta" (PDO) as a protected designation of origin (PDO) in the register of protected designations of origin;
(order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants, the main producers of the cow-milk feta produced in Germany, seek the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002.
1The applicants submit first of all that the information in Greece's notification of 17 January 1995 does not satisfy the formal requirements for the inclusion of "Feta" in the list of protected designations of origin. That is so because Greece's application was out of time, precluding the Commission from registering "Feta" under the shortened procedure pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.
2 Furthermore, it is not possible for the name "Feta" to be protected under Article 17 since Greece did not introduce protection of feta at national level until 11 January 1994, that is to say almost six months after Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 entered into force.
The applicants further submit that the contested regulation does not comply in the slightest with the grounds of the decision of the Court of Justice of 16 March 1999,
3 according to which the Commission must accord decisive importance to the markets which, at the time of Greece's application, had already lawfully developed in the Member States and throughout the world. Moreover, the product "feta" is not capable of being protected since it is not a protected designation of origin but rather a generic name. Under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2081/92 generic names cannot be registered. Furthermore, feta is a product which originates not just from Greece, but from the Mediterranean and Balkan region. Feta has been produced and consumed in considerable quantities for decades in six Member States. In addition, the burden rests with Greece to prove that feta is not a generic name; it has not adduced evidence discharging this burden.
The applicants also argue that the requirements of Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 2081/92 are not met. Feta is not a traditional geographic name. The name "feta" comes from Italian and means "slice", and was a generic name before the adoption of Regulation No 2081/92 and thus allowed to be used in intra-Community trade between Member States. Finally the registration of "Feta" infringes the Community-law fundamental rights to protection of property and of exercise of a profession, nor is the injury to property justified by Article 30 EC.
____________1 - (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name "Feta" (OJ 2002 L 277, p. 10).2 - (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).3 - (Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96 Denmark and Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.