EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-49/14: Action brought on 17 January 2014 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0049

62014TN0049

January 17, 2014
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/46

(Case T-49/14)

2014/C 112/59

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung, M. Teworte-Vey, A. Renvert and J. Saatkamp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul Commission Implementing Decision of 14 November 2013 concerning the rejection of a request to cancel a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski (PGI)) (notified under document C(2013) 7626).

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging an incorrect legal basis

The applicant claims that the defendant based the contested decision, unlawfully, on the new version of Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 applicable when the decision was adopted rather than on the older version Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 applicable at the time of the applicant’s request. The defendant thereby infringed the principle expressed by the maxim ‘tempus regit actum’.

The applicant also argues that the request to cancel the entry is admissible and well founded under Regulation No 510/2006. It states in this context inter alia that there are two reasons for the cancellation (the indication at issue is a generic name within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006; the geographical area Silesia is incorrectly defined in the specification of the registration) within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 510/2006 and that a divergent interpretation and application of that provision would impinge upon the fundamental rights of bakery businesses in the Federal Republic.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1151/2012

The applicant claims that the request would even be admissible and well founded were it to be assessed on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia