Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CN0393

Case C-393/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2016 — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd

OJ C 402, 31.10.2016, p. 16–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

31.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/16


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2016 — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd

(Case C-393/16)

(2016/C 402/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne

Defendant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd

Intervener: Galana NV

Questions referred

1.

Are Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that their scope also covers a case in which the protected designation of origin is used as part of the designation of a foodstuff which does not correspond to the product specifications but to which an ingredient has been added which does correspond to the product specifications?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Are Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the designation of a foodstuff which does not correspond to the product specifications but to which an ingredient has been added which does correspond to the product specifications constitutes exploitation of the reputation of the designation of origin in the case where the designation of the foodstuff corresponds to the customary designations on the market in question and the ingredient is added in a quantity which is sufficient to give the product one of its essential characteristics?

3.

Are Article 118m(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin in the circumstances set out in Question 2 constitutes misuse, imitation or evocation?

4.

Are Article 118m(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that they are applicable only to false or misleading indications which, on the market in question, are liable to create a false impression as to a product’s geographical origin?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation); OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007; OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671.


Top