Abstract
On 1 June 2018 the EU Commission presented a Proposal for the reform of the EU CAP, including different aspects of the EU sui generis GI rules. In particular, this Institution has put forward an amendment to the definition of protected designations of origin (PDO), according to which the “human element” of the link between the product and the place, that has always been a key part of the concept of appellation of origin/PDO, should become optional, to be taken into consideration only “when relevant”. Allegedly, this amendment should enhance clarity and simplicity within the EU GI system. The present opinion disagrees and invites the Commission to reconsider the proposed reform. Indeed, on the one hand, this seems to be based on a disputable notion of the PDO origin link; on the other, it is likely to have a modest impact on the structure of the applications as the human element will always be relevant in order to establish a convincing terroir link. Thus, the goals that the Commission is determined to pursue – namely, the simplification of the system and the acceleration of the registration procedure – will hardly be achieved. More specifically, this opinion submits that this specific amendment concerning the definition of a PDO should not be included in the future reform of the EU Law of Geographical Indications because: (1) it is based on an idea of GI protection that was discarded with the introduction of the EU sui generis GI regime in 1992; (2) it adopts a disputable concept of terroir; (3) it could potentially weaken the foundations of PDO and makes it less justifiable with respect to third countries; and (4) it is apparently inconsistent with the recent reform of the Lisbon Agreement, that the Commission itself is endorsing and recommending to the EU Member States.
Highlights
On the one hand, this seems to be based on a disputable notion of the protected designations of origin (PDO) origin link; on the other, it is likely to have a modest impact on the structure of the applications as the human element will always be relevant in order to establish a convincing terroir link
The goals that the Commission is determined to pursue – namely, the simplification of the system and the acceleration of the registration procedure – will hardly be achieved. This opinion submits that this specific amendment concerning the definition of a PDO should not be included in the future reform of the EU Law of Geographical Indications because: (1) it is based on an idea of GI protection that was discarded with the introduction of the EU sui generis GI regime in 1992; (2) it adopts a disputable concept of terroir; (3) it could potentially weaken the foundations of PDO and makes it less justifiable with respect to third countries; and (4) it is apparently inconsistent with the recent reform of the Lisbon Agreement, that the Commission itself is endorsing and recommending to the EU Member States
This statement will be supported in the following way: first the concept of PDO and its historical origins will be discussed; second the justificatory reasons for the Commission’s proposal will be analysed; third, and final, it will be demonstrated that the proposed amendment is problematic because (1) it is based on an outdated idea of GI protection; (2) it seems to misinterpret the concept of terroir; (3) it is very likely that it would weaken the foundations of the PDO quality scheme; and (4) it is inconsistent with the recent reform of the Lisbon Agreement that the EU Commission itself is actively supporting and endorsing
Summary
On 1 June 2018 the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (hereafter, the ‘‘Proposal’’) aimed at pursuing a wide-ranging reform of various aspects of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (hereafter, the ‘‘CAP’’). In this broad context the Commission has put forward different amendments to Regulation 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (hereafter the ‘‘Regulation’’).. The European Parliament, opposes this proposed new text and, in a report, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has put forward the following version of Art. 5(2)(b) of the Regulation: ‘‘whose quality or characteristics are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment, with its natural and human factors.’’10. It is likely to be detrimental to the nature of PDO, in the worst-case scenario, or just superfluous, in the best-case scenario This statement will be supported in the following way: first the concept of PDO and its historical origins will be discussed; second the justificatory reasons for the Commission’s proposal will be analysed; third, and final, it will be demonstrated that the proposed amendment is problematic because (1) it is based on an outdated idea of GI protection; (2) it seems to misinterpret the concept of terroir; (3) it is very likely that it would weaken the foundations of the PDO quality scheme; and (4) it is inconsistent with the recent reform of the Lisbon Agreement that the EU Commission itself is actively supporting and endorsing
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
