the competent State) may well be based in a place other than the territory where the tradition underlying the TSG originated. Public bodies and other interested parties are only allowed to assist with the preparation of the application and the related procedure. The application for protection must be accompanied by the relevant specification145. The requested Member State is responsible for the initial assessment of the application, which focuses on verifying the eligibility requirements, i.e. whether the product and its name have the necessary link to the reference tradition. If these requirements are found to be met, the State may decide to submit the application for protection to the Commission, thus opening the second phase. In this hypothesis, however, the State is not permitted to grant provisional national protection to the TSG name (contrary to what happens in similar circumstances for PDOs and PGIs). During the national phase, the State concerned has an obligation to ensure the existence of an internal opposition procedure, open to all interested parties and duly publicised146, whose outcome ultimately conditions the entire procedure, if the conflict is not settled. In fact, the procedure may also advance in the meantime, but the phase at European level may still be blocked at its end, if the State’s decision to apply for protection is invalidated at national level by an administrative or judicial decision that is immediately applicable, but not final, or if the State itself requests it, considering the opposition to be founded on valid grounds. In any case, if the procedure continues and the competent national judicial authority finally invalidates the decision of the State to apply for protection, the latter is obliged to consider appropriate measures, such as the withdrawal or modification of the application for registration at the Union level stage147. Such rules are the legislator’s response to what happened in the Piadina Romagnola PGI case, decided a few years earlier by the EU Court .148 It concerned the following facts. The Italian administrative authorities had applied to the Commission for registration of the name of this foodstuff and 145 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, art. 56(2). 146 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, art. 56(3). 147 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, art. 60. 148 EU General Court, (Second Chamber), judgment of 23 April 2018, Piadina Romagnola PGI, T-43/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:208. D. Gadbin, Indications géographiques de provenance: le “pain du pauvre” doit-il rester artisanal?, in Revue de droit rural 2018, p.62. 352 ERMENEGILDO MARIO APPIANO
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==