In other words, if the amendment to the specification meant that the quality or reputation of a product could no longer be linked to its geographical origin, producers benefiting from a specific PDO or PGI would gain an unfair competitive advantage over other operators. However, the German national court rejected the opposition to an application for amendment of the product specification on the grounds that the applicant did not have a ‘legitimate interest’ because it was not a local operator in the Spree region and could not use the protected name, therefore having no interest in the amendment. This decision was appealed to a higher court, which noted the absence of a concept of legitimate interest in EU law and therefore referred the matter to the CJEU. The Court took the opposite view: holding that standing should be granted to anyone who could suffer ‘actual or potential harm’ following registration or amendment, provided it is not entirely implausible. The relevant point here is the hermeneutic indication that can be gleaned from the ruling under examination. Rather than offering a theoretical-dogmatic interpretation of the concept of legitimate interest, the judges opted for a highly pragmatic approach, which, despite its ambiguities, seems to be an adequate compromise12. VI. CONCLUSIONS A recurring and authoritative warning from the CJEU is that behind the protection of a PDO or PGI there is a need to protect a specific added value of the food, without creating conditions of unfair competition and avoiding exploitation and misuse of the designation. For the reasons outlined above, market efficiency also depends on the possibility of opposing a recognition procedure, a fair remedy that aims to offer protection to anyone who, following registration or modification, may suffer “actual or potential harm, provided that it is not entirely implausible”. This is a pragmatic criterion based on case law, which should be welcomed. However, it is important to note that merely alleging prejudice is not enough; this prejudice must be actual or potential and, in any case, not implausible, as the CJEU also states. Without prejudice to this further clarification, it is important to try to define 12 See M. Mauro, La legittimazione a proporre opposizione alle richieste di registrazione di una DOP o IGP o modifica del disciplinare: la nozione europea di interesse legittimo, in Riv. dir. alimentare, 4/2022, p. 16 ss. 405 QUALITY FOOD PRODUCTION: BETWEEN PROTECTION NEEDS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==