This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CA0053
Case C-53/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG v Spreewaldverein eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph — Article 53(2), first subparagraph — Amendment to a product specification — Spreewald gherkins (Germany) ‘Spreewälder Gurken (PGI)’ — Amendments which are not minor — Opposition procedure — Statement of opposition to the application for amendment — Appeal against the decision granting that application — Concept of ‘legitimate interest’)
Case C-53/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG v Spreewaldverein eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph — Article 53(2), first subparagraph — Amendment to a product specification — Spreewald gherkins (Germany) ‘Spreewälder Gurken (PGI)’ — Amendments which are not minor — Opposition procedure — Statement of opposition to the application for amendment — Appeal against the decision granting that application — Concept of ‘legitimate interest’)
Case C-53/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG v Spreewaldverein eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph — Article 53(2), first subparagraph — Amendment to a product specification — Spreewald gherkins (Germany) ‘Spreewälder Gurken (PGI)’ — Amendments which are not minor — Opposition procedure — Statement of opposition to the application for amendment — Appeal against the decision granting that application — Concept of ‘legitimate interest’)
OJ C 217, 7.6.2021, p. 15–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
7.6.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 217/15 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG v Spreewaldverein eV
(Case C-53/20) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph - Article 53(2), first subparagraph - Amendment to a product specification - Spreewald gherkins (Germany) ‘Spreewälder Gurken (PGI)’ - Amendments which are not minor - Opposition procedure - Statement of opposition to the application for amendment - Appeal against the decision granting that application - Concept of ‘legitimate interest’)
(2021/C 217/20)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG
Defendant: Spreewaldverein eV
Operative part of the judgment
Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph, of 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, in conjunction with Article 53(2), first subparagraph, thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the procedure applicable to applications for non-minor amendments to the specification of a product covered by a protected geographical indication, any natural or legal person actually or potentially affected economically — without such effect being entirely implausible — by the amendments applied for may be sufficient to establish the ‘legitimate interest’ required to declare an opposition to the application for amendment submitted or to lodge an appeal against the decision granting that application, provided that the risk of harm to the interests of such a person is not purely improbable or hypothetical, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.