may also be lodged by any natural or legal person resident or established in a Member State other than the one in which the application was filed, provided the statement is sent via the authorities of the relevant Member State. The objections raised at a national level and those submitted to the Commission are united by the same premise: anyone wishing to contest the registration of a new GI or an amendment to the relevant specification must demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest that is not exclusively economic in nature. To reach a conclusion at this point in the text, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of ‘legitimate interest’, which justifies the opposition, and the related scope of active legitimacy. Similarly, at this stage of the document, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of legitimate interest that justifies the objection and the related standing to sue. In the absence of an authentic interpretation, which is the only tool available to lawyers, it becomes essential to resort to jurisprudential interpretation in order to find an answer to the question. In particular, for the purposes of this paper, it seems useful to refer to the 2021 ruling in Hengstengberg GmbH & Co. KG v. Spreewaldverein e V, concerning a not insignificant amendment to the specifications11. In summary, this case involves a request to amend the specifications for Spreewalder Gurken PGI, which was registered as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) on 19 March 1999 and covers cucumbers. The application for registration stipulated that the processed product must consist of more than 70% cucumbers produced in the Spreewald region and contain onions, dill, fresh herbs and horseradish. On 18 February 2021, the Association of Spreewald PGI Cucumber Producers (Spreewaldverein) submitted a request to amend the product specification, primarily to allow the use of additional additives and preservatives. A company not located within the Spreewald but operating in the same sector lodged an objection to this request for amendment. The applicant claimed that the amendment would result in products being processed using methods that are not traditional, thereby compromising the specific link between the food and the geographical area described in the specification. This link justifies the protection afforded by the PGI designation and would give producers in that specific geographical area an unjustified competitive advantage at the expense of other competitors, including the appellant itself. 11 CGUE, 15 aprile 2021, C-935/19, Hengstengberg GmbH & Co. KG contro Spreewaldverein eV.; CGCE, 6 dicembre 2001, in causa C-267/99, Carl Kühne e a. c. Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, con nota di I. Canfora, I disciplinari di produzione DOP e IGP: ripartizione di competenze tra Stati membri e organi comunitari, in Dir. giur. agr. alim. amb., 2002, p. 16. 404 STEFANIA PEDRABISSI
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==