T-78/98

UNIONE PROVINCIALE DEGLI AGRICOLTORI DI FIRENZE AND OTHERS V COMMISSION

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) 29 April 1999 *

In Case T-78/98,

Unione provinciale degli agricoltori di Firenze, an association governed by Italian law, established in Florence, Italy,

Unione Pratese degli Agricoltori, an association governed by Italian law, established in Prato, Italy,

Consorzio Produttori dell'Olio Tipico di Oliva della Provincia di Firenze, an

ν

* Language of the case: Italian.

II - 1379

ORDER OF 29. 4. 1999 — CASE T-78/98

Commission of the European Communities, represented by José Luis Iglesias and Eugenio de March, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

Order

Legal background

1 Article 1 of 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, hereinafter 'Regulation No 2081/92') lays down rules on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications which may be afforded to certain agricultural products and certain foodstuffs.

2 Under Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92, geographical indication means the name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases, a country, used to describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff originating in that region, specific place or country, and which possesses a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics attributable to that geographical origin and the production and/or processing and/or preparation of which take place in the defined geographical area.

3 Registration of the name of an agricultural product or foodstuff as a protected designation of origin (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI), which confers Community protection on such name, must comply with the conditions II - 1381

ORDER OF 29. 4. 1999 — CASE T-78/98

...'.

II - 1382

UNIONE PROVINCIALE DEGLI AGRICOLTORI DI FIRENZE AND OTHERS V COMMISSION

4 Regulation No 2081/92 provides for two registration procedures.

5 Under the 'normal' procedure provided for in Articles 5 to 7 of the regulation any group, defined as any association of producers and/or processors working with the same agricultural product or foodstuff or, subject to certain conditions, any natural or legal person, is entitled to apply for registration of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication in respect of agricultural products or foodstuffs which it produces or obtains originating in the specific geographical area within the Member State in which that area is situated. The Member State checks that the application is justified and forwards it to the Commission which, if it concludes that the name qualifies for protection, inserts a notice to that effect in the Official Journal of the European Communities. If no statement of objections is notified to the Commission by a Member State or a natural or legal person in accordance with Article 7, the name is entered in a register kept by the Commission entitled 'Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications'.

6Article17 of Regulation No 2081/92 provides for a 'simplified' registration procedure aimed at registration of names already existing in the Member States on the date of entry into force of the regulation. It provides that:

8 By a letter dated 22 January 1994 the Italian Government transmitted to the Commission an application for registration under Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 of several names and, with specific reference to olive oil, of the name 'Toscana' or 'Toscano' as a protected designation of origin on the ground that the name constituted a geographical indication traditionally used in Italy.

9 On 6 December 1995 the Italian Government submitted to the Commission a registration file including a summary, a production specification and a technical, historical and cartographical report stating that its application related to the name 'Toscano' which 'may be accompanied by one of the following geographi- cal indications: "Seggiano", "Colline Lucchesi", "Colline della Lunigiana", "Colline di Arezzo", "Colline Senesi", "Colline di Firenze", "Montalbano", "Monti Pisani" and "Chianti Classico"'. II - 1384

UNIONE PROVINCIALE DEGLI AGRICOLTORI DI FIRENZE AND OTHERS V COMMISSION

10 By letter dated 11 March 1996 the Commission informed the Italian Government that, irrespective of whether its application was well founded, the names added as 'variants' of the main name 'Toscano' in the file forwarded on 6 December 1995 could not be registered under the simplified procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 because they had not been communicated within the six- month period provided for under that article, which expired on 26 January 1994. It followed, the Commission said, that to be protected under Regulation No 2081/92 those names had to be communicated under the normal registration procedure and, moreover, that they could not enjoy the provisional protection provided for under Article 17(3) of that regulation.

ORDER OF 29. 4. 1999 — CASE T-78/98

14 By letter dated 15 January 1998 the Italian Government submitted to the Commission a formal application for registration of the name 'Toscano' as a protected geographical indication.

15 Acting upon that application, the Commission submitted to the committee referred to in Article 15 of Regulation No 2081/92 the draft registration of the name 'Toscano' as a protected geographical indication on the basis of a summary document which no longer mentioned the additional names.

16 The committee issued a favourable opinion on the draft and so the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 644/98 of 20 March 1998 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1998 L 87, p. 8, 'Regulation No 644/98' or 'the contested regulation') which, under the heading 'Oils and fats, olive oil, Italy' at paragraph A of the aforementioned annex, added the name 'Toscano (PGI)'.

17 The applicants are olive-oil producers established in the Tuscany region of Italy who use names such as 'Colline di Firenze' or similar names in order to market their products, and associations representing the collective interests of those producers.

18 By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 May 1998 the applicants brought this action. They are seeking the annulment of Regulation No 644/98 in so far as it provides for registration of the name 'Toscano' as a protected geographical indication, since the product specification on which registration was based includes other names of olive oil corresponding to certain areas of the Tuscany region which are freely used by certain producers such as the applicants and members of the applicant associations in order to market their products. They allege first that the Commission infringed Article 2 of Regulation II - 1386

— annul the contested regulation;

— order the Commission to pay the costs. II - 1387

ORDER OF 29. 4. 1999 — CASE T-78/98

21 In its objection of inadmissibility the Commission claims that the Court should:

— dismiss the action as inadmissible;

— order the applicants to pay the costs.

24 The Commission stresses, moreover, that if the applicants take the view that names such as 'Colline di Firenze' would in the future be eligible for protection as designations of origin, it is for them to submit an application for registration to that effect, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation No 2081/92, as had been proposed to the Italian authorities by the scientific committee and by itself.

25 Secondly, the Commission considers that the applicants do not, in any event, have locus standi to challenge Regulation No 644/98. That is, it is submitted, an act of general application within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty and an action challenging it is, as has been consistently held, inadmissible (Case 307/81 Alusuisse ν Council and Commission [1982] ECR 3463, Case 26/86 Deutz and Geldermann ν Commission [1987] ECR 941 and Joined Cases 250/86 and 11/87 Refinarias de Açucar Reunidas (RAR) ν Council and Commission [1989] ECR 2045, summary publication). Nor are the applicants in the same situation as the applicant in Case C-309/89 Codorniu ν Council [1994] ECR I-1853, so that they cannot be considered to be individually and directly concerned under Article 173 of the Treaty. In that connection the fact that they have used names such as 'Colline di Firenze', which they may continue to do, does not mean that they are adversely affected by registration of the protected geographical indication 'Toscano' owing to certain attributes peculiar to them or a factual situation distinguishing them from any other person.

29 Finally, the applicants consider themselves to be individually concerned by Regulation No 644/98 as defined in the Codorniu ν Council judgment cited above, inasmuch as it occasions them serious harm by preventing them henceforth from freely using the name 'Colline di Firenze' or other analogous names, on account of the unlawful protection afforded to those names by the

II - 1390

UNIONE PROVINCIALE DEGLI AGRICOLTORI DI FIRENZE AND OTHERS V COMMISSION

regulation. In that connection the applicant associations add that they represent the interests of producers in the region which use those names.

Findings of the Court

30 It has been consistently held that the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is dependent upon the condition that the person concerned demonstrate a legal interest in bringing proceedings (Case 88/76 Société pour l'Exportation des Sucres ν Commission [1977] ECR 709, paragraph 19; order in Case 134/87 Vlachou ν Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 3633, paragraph 8; order in Case T-6/95 Cantine dei colli Berici ν Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 46, and judgment in Case T-117/95 Corman · ν Commission [1997] ECR 11-95, paragraph 83). In particular, he must be able to demonstrate a personal interest in the annulment of the contested decision (see, for example, Case T-58/92 Moat ν Commission [1993] ECR II-1443, paragraph 31).

34 In those circumstances the applicants qua producers using names other than the protected geographical indication 'Toscano' cannot claim to be concerned by Regulation No 644/98, with the result that they have no legal interest in bringing proceedings for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (see Corman ν Commission, cited above, paragraph 83).

35 Accordingly, the action brought by the applicants in their capacity as farmers must be dismissed as inadmissible.

36 In so far as the action is brought by the applicant associations, it should be noted that, as has consistently been held, the defence of general and collective interests of a category of persons is not sufficient to establish the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by an association, with the result that, unless there are

II - 1392

UNIONE PROVINCIALE DEGLI AGRICOLTORI DI FIRENZE AND OTHERS V COMMISSION

special circumstances such as the role played in the procedure leading to adoption of the act at issue, an action for annulment brought by such an association is inadmissible if it could not have been brought by its members individually (order in Case C-409/96 Ρ Betodlares and Henrikson v Commission [1997] ECR I-7531, paragraph 45).

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

hereby orders:

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicants shall bear the costs.

Luxembourg, 29 April 1999.