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-354/13: Action brought on 4 July 2013 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0354

62013TN0354

July 4, 2013
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

7.9.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/43

(Case T-354/13)

2013/C 260/78

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. T. Saatkamp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the defendant’s decision of 8 April 2013 in the cases ‘Kołocz śląski/Kołacz śląski’ — Schlesischer Streuselkuchen (Ref. Ares [2013] 619104 — 10 April 2013).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law: incorrect legal basis

The applicant claims that the defendant erred in law in basing its decision concerning the applicant’s request for cancellation of the registration of ‘Kołocz śląski/Kołacz śląski’ as a protected geographical indication on the new version of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, (1) in force at the time of the defendant’s decision, instead of on the old Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, (2) in force at the time when the applicant submitted its request. The defendant thereby infringed the principle of tempus regit actum.

The applicant further claims that the request for cancellation of the registration under Regulation No 510/2006 is admissible and well founded. In this connection, it maintains, inter alia, that there are two grounds for cancellation (the generic nature of the contested indication within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, and the erroneous delimitation of the geographic zone of Silesia in the registration specifications) for the purpose of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 510/2006, and that any different interpretation and application of that provision would infringe the fundamental rights of bakeries in the Federal Republic of Germany.

2.Second plea in law: breach of Regulation No 1151/2012

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

(1) 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 (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