LegalizeCommission Regulation (EU) No 1121/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)]
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to 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 (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 7(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and pursuant to Article 17(2) of the same Regulation, the application of the Netherlands to enter the designation ‘Edam Holland’ in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).
(2) The Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Austria, Slovakia, the governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America, as well as Diary Australia, Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand and the National Milk Producers Federation together with U.S. Dairy Export Council submitted objections to the registration under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The objections were deemed admissible under Article 7(3) of that Regulation, except the objections of Australia and of Dairy Australia, which were deemed inadmissible due to their late arrival.
(3) Statements of objection concerned non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, in particular the name and its use, specificity and reputation of the product, delimitation of geographical area as well as restrictions on the origin of raw materials. The objections also claimed that registration would be contrary to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, would jeopardise the existence of names, trademarks or products which had been legally on the market for at least five years preceding the date of the publication provided for in Article 6(2) and that the name proposed for registration is generic.
(4) By letters dated 21 October 2008, the Commission asked the Netherlands and the objectors to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.
(5) Given that no agreement with the objectors was reached within the designated time limit, the Commission should adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.
(6) Concerning the alleged failure of compliance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 in respect of the name, geographical area, specificity of the product, link between the product characteristics and the geographical area, reputation and restrictions concerning the origin of raw material, the national authorities responsible provided confirmation that these elements were present and in addition no manifest error was identified. It should be pointed out that ‘Holland’ is not the name of the Member State concerned, and that ‘Edam Holland’ is considered a traditional geographical name encompassed by Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. The requirements of Article 2(1), point b) of the said Regulation are in this connection fulfilled since the related geographical area is delimited accordingly to the link and the main elements of the product specificity. The specificity of Edam Holland is due to a combination of factors linked to the geographical area: such as the quality of milk (high fat level and protein content), amino acids originating from β-CN and γ-glutamyl peptide, prevalence of grazing on meadows, use of calf rennet, natural ripening, as well as the skills of the farmers and cheese producers.
(7) As regards objections based on non compliance with Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Netherlands submitted information regarding the distinction between the product bearing the registered name ‘Noord-Hollandse Edammer’ and that for which the name ‘Edam Holland’ is applied. No evidence was provided in the statement of objections that consumers would be liable to be misled or that the producers would be treated in an inequitable manner.
(8) It appears that the objectors did not refer to the entire name ‘Edam Holland’ when claiming that registration would jeopardize the existence of names, trademarks or products and that the name proposed for registration is generic, but only to one element of it, namely ‘Edam’. However, protection is granted to the term ‘Edam Holland’ as a whole. Pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the term ‘Edam’ may continue to be used provided the principles and rules applicable in the Union’s legal order are respected. For the sake of clarification, the specification and the summary have been modified accordingly.
(9) In the light of the above, the name ‘Edam Holland’ should be entered in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’.
(10) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The designation contained in Annex I to this Regulation shall be entered in the Register.
Notwithstanding the first paragraph, the name ‘Edam’ may continue to be used within the territory of the Union, provided the principles and rules applicable in its legal order are respected.
Article 2
A consolidated version of the summary containing the main points of the specification is set out in Annex II to this Regulation.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 December 2010.
For the Commission The President José Manuel BARROSO