Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Food Diversity and Typicality in EU and in Italian Law: Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs); Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs); Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSGs)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Food Diversity Between Rights, Duties and Autonomies

Part of the book series: LITES - Legal Issues in Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies ((LITES,volume 2))

  • 559 Accesses

Abstract

On 14 December 2012, Reg. (EU) 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (the “Quality Schemes Regulation”) was published in the EU Official Journal. The adoption of the Quality Schemes Regulation places itself in the context of a broader revision regarding the entire quality policy for European agri-food products to enhance this policy’s potential contribution to achieving the objectives of the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy). Enhancing the agri-food quality policy, which is one of the major strengths of European agriculture, permits the emergence of a more competitive economy. The European agri-food sector, thanks to the high quality of its products, enjoys an excellent reputation in the international community. For this reason, it is necessary to improve the way in which this quality is communicated. The Quality Schemes Regulation covers the provisions on PDO, PGI and TSG schemes. This Regulation has introduced several changes, aimed at strengthening the quality schemes for European agricultural products and foodstuffs, such as: the mandatory requirement for Member States to put in place administrative and judicial procedures to prevent or stop ex officio the unlawful use of a protected geographical indication, new rules on the TSG scheme, the introduction of the optional quality terms as a new quality scheme. However, there are serious doubts that the quality system, as devised by the Quality Schemes Regulation, can ensure to all the registered PDOs, PGIs and TSGs the visibility they deserve, as well as the protection they need at the international level (especially in view of the FTA US-EU).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Reg. (EU) 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ [2012] L 343/1.

  2. 2.

    Reg. (EC) 509/2006 of the Council of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialties guaranteed, OJ [2006] L 93/1.

  3. 3.

    Reg. (EC) 510/2006 of the Council of 20 March on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ [2006] L 93/12.

  4. 4.

    Reg. (ECC) 2081/1992 of the Council of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ [1992] L 208/1.

  5. 5.

    Reg. (EEC) 2082/1992 of the Council of 14 July 1992 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ [1992] L 208/9.

  6. 6.

    Costato (2006), p. 351 et seqq; Coppola (2013), p. 31; Pisanello (2006), p. 556 et seqq; Gencarelli (2006), p. 609 et seqq; Petrelli (2012), p. 285 et seqq.

  7. 7.

    See recital 44 of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  8. 8.

    See Articles 27–34 of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  9. 9.

    See the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on agricultural product quality schemes, of 10 December 2010, COM(2010) 733 fin., point 1.2., p. 3. See also the Proposal of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 regarding marketing standards, of 10 December 2010, COM(2010) 738 fin., point 1.2, p. 4.

  10. 10.

    Albisinni (2000), p. 109 et seqq; Altili (2012), p. 95 et seqq.

  11. 11.

    COM(2010) 2020 fin.

  12. 12.

    See recital 4 of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  13. 13.

    Jannarelli (2011), p. 199 et seqq; Adornato (2010), p. 19 et seqq.

  14. 14.

    Rook Basile (1996), p. 182; Losavio (2007), p. 19; Lucifero (2011), p. 326; Tommasini (2011), p. 493.

  15. 15.

    Bolognini (2012), p. 47 et seqq.

  16. 16.

    We can mention here, for example: Law 125/1954, referred to the protection of the typical designations of cheese (whose implementation was regulated by the Decree of the President of Republic 667/1955); Law 506/1970, related to the provisions on the protection of designation of origin of Parma ham, the delimitation of its production area and its characteristics; Law 507/1970, related to the protection of designations of origin and typicality of the San Daniele ham; Law 224/1989, laying down the protection of the designation of origin of the Varzi salami, the delimitation of its production area and its characteristics. Some of these regulations, subsequently amended, have been repealed, while others are still in force.

  17. 17.

    Gragnani (2013a), p. 376.

  18. 18.

    COM(2008) 641 fin.

  19. 19.

    COM(2009) 234 fin.

  20. 20.

    COM(2010) 733 fin.

  21. 21.

    COM(2010) 738 fin.

  22. 22.

    OJ [2010] C 341/3.

  23. 23.

    OJ [2010] C 341/5.

  24. 24.

    See the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on agricultural product quality schemes, of 10 December 2010, COM(2010) 733 fin., point 2.2., p. 5.

  25. 25.

    See Art. 1, para 1, of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  26. 26.

    See Art. 1, para 1, of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  27. 27.

    See Costato (2012), p. 648 et seqq; Capelli (2014), p. 52 et seqq and Coppola (2013), at p. 31 et seqq.

  28. 28.

    See Art. 13 of the Quality Schemes Regulation and especially its para 3. This provision fills a gap present in the previous regulation, which, in the famous controversy “Parmesan”, allowed Germany to refuse to prosecute on its territory the placement on the market of cheese under the designation ‘Parmesan’, which did not comply with the specification for the protected designation of origin (‘PDO’) ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’. The behaviour of German national authorities was justified by the lack of a specific European provision, which required Germany to prosecute ex officio the marketing under the designation ‘Parmesan’ on its territory of cheese which did not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’. In particular, according to the Court of Justice, the Commission failed to demonstrate that Germany was under an obligation to take such action in the absence of sufficient and appropriate external impetus to do so. See CJUE, Case C-132/05, Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany [2008] ECR I-957. The new rule provided by Art. 13, para 3, aims at pursuing one of the most important objectives of the Quality Schemes Regulation, which is to increase the effectiveness of the PDOs and PGIs protection. In this regard, the Quality Schemes Regulation also better defines the roles assigned to the so-called groups in supervising the correct use of the quality schemes. The importance of this objective emerges also from the new legal basis of the Quality Scheme Regulation, such as Art. 118, para 1, TFEU. The legal bases of the Regulation are, in fact, Art. 43, para 2, and Art. 118, para 1, TFEU. As known, Art. 43, para 2, TFEU is the agricultural legal basis. Art. 118, para1, TFEU is, on the contrary, a new provision introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, under which “In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the Union and for the setting up of centralised Union-wide authorisation, coordination and supervision arrangements”. It is evident that the presence of Art. 118, para 1, TFEU as one of the legal bases of the Quality Schemes Regulation aims to permit the EU to exercise all the actions required to protect intellectual property rights in a uniform way within the European Union. See Albisinni (2015), p. 251 et seqq; Capelli (2014), p. 53.

  29. 29.

    See Art. 5, para 1, of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  30. 30.

    See Art. 5, para 2, of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  31. 31.

    See Art. 3, no 2, of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  32. 32.

    See Art. 7 et seqq of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  33. 33.

    See Masini (2012), p. 354, who underlines that “Product specification plays a crucial role in the procedure of registration, as it represents a self regulation code or negotiation regulation, that every single producer must adopt to use the geographical indication”.

  34. 34.

    See Art. 13, para 1, lit (a) and lit (b), of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  35. 35.

    See Art. 13, para 2, lit (c), of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  36. 36.

    Galli (2004), p. 71.

  37. 37.

    Capelli (2014), p. 55; Strambi (2014), p. 367; Gragnani (2013b), p. 156.

  38. 38.

    See Strambi (2014), p. 368 et seq. See also recital 36 of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  39. 39.

    Canfora (2011), p. 75 et seqq.

  40. 40.

    See Art. 3, no 5, of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  41. 41.

    See Art. 3, no 5, of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  42. 42.

    See Art. 4, par. 2, second provision, of Reg. (EC) 509/2006.

  43. 43.

    Gragnani (2013a), p. 383.

  44. 44.

    Gragnani (2013b), p. 155.

  45. 45.

    Gragnani (2013b), p. 156; Masini (2006), p. 490; Canfora (2011), p. 79.

  46. 46.

    See recital 3 of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  47. 47.

    Masini (2015), p. 279; Gragnani (2013b), p. 156.

  48. 48.

    Strambi (2014), p. 372 et seq; Gragnani (2013b), p. 158; Canfora (2011), p. 80.

  49. 49.

    See Articles 35–40 of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  50. 50.

    See Art. 45, para 1, lit. (d), of the Quality Schemes Regulation.

  51. 51.

    Di Lauro (2005), p. 219.

  52. 52.

    Strambi (2010), p. 113.

  53. 53.

    http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/balanced-eu-us-free-trade-agreement_en.

  54. 54.

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2015-004165&language=EN.

References

  • Adornato F (2010) Le “declinazioni della qualità”: una nota introduttiva. In: Adornato F, Albisinni F, Germanò A (eds) Agricoltura e alimentazione. Principi e regole della qualità. Disciplina internazionale, comunitaria, nazionale. Atti del Convegno internazionale I.D.A.I.C. di Macerata, 9–10 ottobre 2009. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 19–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Albisinni F (2000) Azienda multifunzionale, mercato, territorio. Nuove regole in agricoltura. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Albisinni F (2015) Strumentario di diritto alimentare europeo, 2nd edn. Utet, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Altili P (2012) Certificazione: nuova disciplina in materia di accreditamento e di organismi di controllo. Agri Isti Merc 1:95–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolognini S (2012) La disciplina della comunicazione business to consumer nel mercato agro-alimentare europeo. Giappichelli, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Canfora I (2011) Le “specialità tradizionali garantite”. In: Costato L, Germanò A, Rook Basile E (eds) Trattato di diritto agrario, vol III. Diritto agroalimentare. Utet, Torino, pp 73–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Capelli F (2014) Il Regolamento (UE) n. 1151/2012 sui regimi di qualità dei prodotti agro-alimentari: luci ed ombre. Riv dir alim 1:52–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppola N (2013) Regolamento UE n. 1151/2012 su DOP, IGP E STG: una occasione mancata? Alimenta 2:31–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Costato L (2006) DOP, IGP, STG nei regolamenti del 2006 adottati anche in relazione ai negoziati WTO. Riv dir agr 1:351–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Costato L (2012) Il regolamento n. 1151/2012 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sui regimi di qualità dei prodotti agricoli e alimentari. Riv dir agr 1:648–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Lauro A (2005) Comunicazione pubblicitaria e informazione nel settore agro-alimentare. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Galli C (2004) Globalizzazione dell’economia e tutela delle denominazioni di origine dei prodotti agro–alimentari. Riv dir ind 2:60–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Gencarelli F (2006) La politica comunitaria di qualità alimentare: origine ed evoluzione. Dir com sc intern 3:609–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Gragnani M (2013a) The EU regulation 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. Eur Food Feed Law 6:376–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Gragnani M (2013b) Le Specialità Tradizionali Garantite (STG) secondo il Regolamento UE n. 1151/2012. Alimenta 7–8:155–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Jannarelli A (2011) La qualità dei prodotti agricoli: considerazioni introduttive ad un approccio sistemico. In: Jannarelli A (ed) Profili giuridici del sistema agroalimentare tra ascesa e crisi della globalizzazione. Cacucci editore, Bari, pp 199–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Losavio C (2007) Il consumatore di alimenti nell’Unione europea e il suo diritto a essere informato. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucifero N (2011) La comunicazione simbolica nel mercato alimentare: marchi e segni del territorio. In: Costato L, Germanò A, Rook Basile E (eds) Trattato di diritto agrario, III. Diritto agroalimentare. Utet, Torino, pp 321–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Masini S (2006) Sulla funzione delle specialità tradizionali garantite: una nomenclatura tra tradizione e delocalizzazione. Dir giur agr alim amb 1:490–495

    Google Scholar 

  • Masini S (2012) PDO, PGI and TSG. In: Costato L, Albisinni F (eds) European food law. Cedam, Padova, pp 351–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Masini S (2015) Corso di diritto alimentare, 3rd edn. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrelli L (2012) I regimi di qualità nel diritto alimentare dell’Unione Europea. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisanello D (2006) La riforma del sistema comunitario di tutela delle denominazioni d’origine e delle indicazioni geografiche dei prodotti agricoli e alimentari. Contr impr/Europa 1:556–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Rook Basile E (1996) Prodotti agricoli, mercato di massa e comunicazione simbolica. In: Casadei E, Germanò A, Rook Basile E (eds), Gli attuali confini del diritto agrario. Atti del Convegno “Enrico Bassanelli”, Firenze, 28–30 aprile 1994. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 181–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Strambi G (2010) Gli strumenti di promozione dei prodotti agro-alimentari tradizionali ad alta vocazione territoriale alla luce della Comunicazione sulla politica di qualità dei prodotti agricoli. Riv dir agr 1:109–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Strambi G (2014) La tutela delle “specialità tradizionali garantite” alla luce del reg. UE n. 1151/2012. In: Studi in onore di Luigi Costato, vol II. Diritto alimentare. Diritto dell’Unione europea, Jovene, Napoli, pp 365–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Tommasini A (2011) L’etichetta intesa come regola tecnica e strumento di veicolazione di informazioni dal produttore al consumatore. In: Costato L, Germanò A, Rook Basile E (eds) Trattato di diritto agrario, vol III. Diritto agroalimentare. Utet, Torino, pp 493–497

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy

    Silvia Bolognini

Authors
  1. Silvia Bolognini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, Society and Human Studies, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy

    Alessandro Isoni

  2. Department of Legal Studies, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy

    Michele Troisi

  3. Department of Legal Studies, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy

    Maurizia Pierri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bolognini, S. (2018). Food Diversity and Typicality in EU and in Italian Law: Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs); Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs); Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSGs). In: Isoni, A., Troisi, M., Pierri, M. (eds) Food Diversity Between Rights, Duties and Autonomies. LITES - Legal Issues in Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75196-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75196-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75195-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75196-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation