Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2022)134 - EU geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, and quality schemes for agricultural products - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2022)134 - EU geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, and quality schemes for agricultural products. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2022)134  |
| date | 31-03-2022 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Geographical indications (GIs) identify products having qualities, characteristics or reputation due to natural and human factors linked to their place of origin. They are an intellectual property right (IPR) designed to promote fair competition amongst producers by preventing bad-faith uses of a name and fraudulent and deceptive practices. GIs guarantee authenticity to consumers and distinguish a product in the market securing higher-value sales and exports. GIs have been recognised internationally since 1883 1 , and protected in steps by the Union from the 1970s (wine) to 1992 (agricultural products and foodstuffs), including the completion of the registers 2 in 2020. Today, the EU register of geographical indications contains almost 3500 names of wines, spirit drinks, agricultural products and foodstuffs.
The Union system of GIs is sound, however, the evaluation of the policy as well as the impact assessment process have shown space for improvement, notably with a view to strengthening the system of GIs, as key to provision of high quality food and protecting cultural, gastronomic and local heritage across the Union. This concerns mainly:
• How best to give effect to the fundamental right of producers for the IPR in their GIs to be protected. Producers holding the intangible asset of a GI have a right to have it protected and the Union seeks to do that as efficiently and effectively as possible, also in time of increased use of the internet;
• How to prevent bad faith exploitation of product names by operators who have no rights or association with the authentic product. Enforcement, notably on the internet, and verification of compliance also need to be reviewed;
• How to increase sustainable production of products with GIs. As an instrument that valorises products intrinsically linked to the natural factors and know-how of producers in a local area, GIs are under-used for this purpose;
• How can consumers be better informed about authentic products to address asymmetric information. Consumer recognition of the dedicated Union symbols is very low, pointing to a difficulty of communication;
• How to ensure producers receive a fair return for their product with its qualities linked to its production, and can strengthen their position in the food supply chain.
The traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme has not after 30 years of existence delivered the expected benefits for producers and consumers. To better identify and promote traditional agricultural products in the Union, the TSG scheme should be simplified and clarified.
The proposal contributes to the objectives pursued by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), in particular to improve the response of Union agriculture to societal demands on economic, social and environmental sustainability outcomes of agricultural production. It will strengthen the current system of GIs as IPRs. The proposal will increase the economic, social and environmental outcomes of GI products, give producers more powers and responsibilities, reduce new forms of infringements (internet), improve the effectiveness of enforcement and checks that guarantee the authenticity of the products, address legislative gaps, and make the registration procedures more efficient. Besides GIs, the proposal also addresses the rules for TSGs, notably in clarifying their definition. On the other hand, the proposal does not make changes to the rules for optional quality terms; these were introduced only in 2012 and their potential first needs to be fully explored by the Member States. Finally, the proposal does not address non-agricultural GIs; the intention of the Commission is to propose a separate legislative act for those.
The overall goal of the GI revision is to facilitate the take up of GIs across the Union, as IP instruments accessible to all farmers and producers of products, linked by characteristics or reputation, and to their place of production. No changes are proposed to the fundamental structure of the GI systems, thus maintaining the role of the Member States in the procedure for applications related to GIs and TSGs; the high level of protection of intellectual property rights; specificities for GIs in the wine and spirit drinks sectors; and national enforcement within the framework of both the Official Controls Regulation and IP tools.
While the production of quality agricultural products is a strength of European agriculture, there are geographical imbalances when it comes to the number of registered GIs across the Union. These reflect different ‘starting points’ and experiences in preserving the gastronomic and cultural heritage of the Member States. The GI revision should pay particular attention to encouraging take-up in those Member States where the use of GIs is under-exploited. GIs reward producers for their efforts to produce a diverse range of quality products, which in turn can benefit the rural economy. This is particularly the case in less-favoured areas, in mountain and in remote regions, where the farming sector accounts for a significant part of the economy and where production costs and handicaps are high. An objective is also to increase the number of registered GIs for each lower-user Member State to the Union average.
The proposal therefore addresses the following general objectives:
1. ensuring effective protection of IPR in the Union, including efficient registration processes, to fairly reward producers for their efforts;
2. increasing the uptake of GIs across the Union to benefit the rural economy.
These two general objectives are detailed in six specific objectives:
1. improve the enforcement of GI rules to better protect IPR and better protect GIs on the internet, including against bad faith registrations and fraudulent and deceptive practices, and uses in the domain name system, and combat counterfeiting;
2. streamline and clarify the legal framework to simplify and harmonise the procedures for application for registration of new names and amendments to product specifications;
3. contribute to making the Union food system more sustainable by integrating specific sustainability criteria;
4. empower producers and producer groups to better manage their GI assets and encourage the development of structures and partnerships within the food supply chain;
5. increase correct market perception and consumer awareness of the GI policy and Union symbols to enable consumers to make informed purchasing choices;
6. safeguard the protection of traditional food names to better valorise and preserve traditional products and production methods.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
Union legislation has provided for the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications in respect of wine since the early 1970s, spirit drinks since 1989 and agricultural products and foodstuffs since 1992. It allows for the registration of valuable product names produced according to a product specification in a given geographical area by producers with recognised know-how. The proposal is consistent with existing policy provisions in the area of GIs. Its aim is to improve the existing provisions and to provide for a simplified and streamlined set of rules while it strengthens certain elements of GI protection, notably by empowering producer groups and increasing the level of protection on the internet. It encourages GI producer groups to include in the product specification requirements of higher economic, social and environmental sustainability outcomes on a voluntary basis. To improve the quality of registrations and the treatment of applications, it provides powers for the Commission to use the technical assistance of an agency to examine the applications while keeping the GI registration and the overall responsibility for GI policy with the Commission.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal is consistent with the overall legal framework established for the CAP. The proposal complements other measures aimed at ensuring the quality and diversity of the Union’s agricultural, wine and spirit drinks production, rewarding producers fairly for their effort, protecting the producers’ fundamental rights in the area of property, and informing citizens and consumers about identifiable specific characteristics of products of the above-mentioned sectors, in particular those linked to their geographical origin.
The Commission committed itself in the Farm to Fork Strategy 3 to contibute to the transtion to a sustainable food system to strengthen the legislative framework of GIs and, where appropriate, to include specific sustainability criteria. GIs are also mentioned in relation to improved rules for strengthening the position of farmers and producer groups in the value chain. The Farm to Fork Action Plan announces other initiatives that impact GI products, in particular a proposal for a legislative framework for sustainable food systems, to be tabled in 2023. The present initiative on GIs was included in the Commission Work Programme 2021 4 under REFIT 5 initiatives, linked to the European Green Deal 6 .
As regards the climate-neutrality objective and the Union’s 2030 and 2040 climate targets, this proposal will not negatively affect the climate.
In addition, the Commission announced in the Communication on an IP Action Plan 7 that it would strengthen the protection system for GIs to make it more effective, including to fight IPR infringements.
Council Conclusions on the Farm to Fork Strategy 8 welcomed a better integration of sustainable development into European quality policy and invited the Commission to reaffirm the relevance and importance of European quality schemes and to strengthen the legislative framework on GIs.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The proposal falls within the scope of the CAP (Article 43 TFEU 9 ) and IPRs (Article 118 TFEU).
As regards the CAP, requirements and rules for the placing of agricultural products, foodstuffs, wines, aromatised wine products and spirit drinks on the internal market and ensuring the integrity of the internal market are matters essentially of Union competence.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
By Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, Regulation (EU) 2019/787 and Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Union has established an exhaustive system for the protection of the names of specific products to promote their unique characteristics, linked to their geographical origin as well as traditional know-how in the field of agricultural products, wine and spirit drinks. Member States may therefore not act individually to achieve this policy objective. Strengthening the current system of GIs can only be achieved by action at Union level, namely by a revision of these Regulations.
• Proportionality
The proposal comprises limited and targeted changes to the current legislative framework for GIs which do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of strengthening the GI system. It keeps in place the specificities of the sectors while it harmonises those rules that are common to all sectors, notably the procedures to register a name or amend the product specification, protection of the names, and checks and enforcement.
• Choice of the instrument
The policy on GIs requires its direct applicability in the Member States. A Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council is the appropriate instrument for a revision of the GI system, taking into account that the legislation currently in force consists of:
• GIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs 10 ;
• GIs for wine — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 11 ;
• GIs for spirit drinks — Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications for spirit drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 12 .
The proposal will entail a repeal of the first above-mentioned Regulation and amendments to the latter two.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
Evaluation of Union policy on GIs and TSGs protected in the Union was carried out. Its findings were published on 21 December 2021 in the Commission Staff Working Document 13 . It covered altogether almost 3 400 GIs and 64 TSGs originating from the Member States. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess to what extent the GI and TSG policy has reached its objectives. The evaluation examined the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and added value at Union level of the GI and TSG framework.
The objectives of GIs and TSGs are overall effectively achieved. A wide range of possible benefits for stakeholders is associated with the policy, like securing fair return and competition for producers. However, these are not systematic in all Member States. The main limits are the low awareness and understanding of the policy by consumers in some Member States and certain weaknesses of the controls at the downstream stages of the value chain. The other core policy objectives — ensuring the respect of GIs as IPR and the integrity of the internal market, and for TSGs to help producers of traditional products to safeguard traditional methods of production and recipes — are in general achieved.
The framework for GIs/TSGs is assessed to be efficient. GIs and TSGs provide several benefits for producers 14 , while the costs for public bodies (at Union and national levels) are low, estimated at 0.12 % of the total sales value under GI/TSG. However, there is room for simplification and reduction of administrative burden, notably as regards the lengthy registration and amendment procedures, both at national and Union level.
The policy is assessed to be relevant for both private stakeholders and public authorities. The objectives of GIs and TSGs are addressing the actual needs of the various stakeholders. GIs and TSGs are considered a strong asset for rural territories and an important tool for promoting regional identity. Strengthening GIs and TSGs through rural development support responds primarily to the need to enhance integration. Although environmental protection and animal welfare are not the main objectives for GI/TSG production, the surveyed producer groups declared that some product specifications consider environmental and animal welfare issues.
Considering coherence, no major incompatibility has been identified regarding the GIs and Union trade marks, GIs/TSGs and national/regional schemes, and GIs/TSGs and other Union policies.
In addition, there is a clear Union added value because GIs and TSGs contribute notably both to the integrity of the internal market and fair trade with third countries.
As regards the lessons learned, besides the above mentioned weaknesses in the field of control and enforcement (downstream market), and low awareness and understanding by consumers, the following points can be highlighted:
• Differences in implementation cause difficulties for enforcing producers’ IPR outside the Member State of production. In addition, GIs cover a wide range of products and are sold through various outlets (including online sales) further hampering their effective enforcement.
• Another issue is closely linked to the Commission’s new political objectives, in particular the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy. As sustainability concerns have become more accentuated in recent years, GI and TSG production is not or not systematically taking them into consideration.
• Producer groups play a pivotal role in the implementation of GIs and TSGs. However, the evaluation found that the tasks they are entitled to conduct highly differ among the various sectors and between the Member States as they are only defined at Union level for the agri-food sector but not for wines and spirit drinks.
• Lengthy and complex procedures for registration and amendments, both at national and European level, are considered the main nuisance for producers and source of administrative burden.
• The limited number of products registered as TSGs, not constituting an IPR, points to a lack of interest in this scheme and the difficulty to protect traditional production methods across the Union.
• Stakeholder consultations
The consultation strategy elaborated for this initiative covered all aspects of the initiative aiming at strengthening the system of GIs. It addressed various stakeholder categories: public authorities, organisations from the farming sector, organisations from the processing sector, European, national and sectoral federations and private companies, consumers’ organisations, organisations from the trade sector and retail sectors; third countries, academic and research institutes, general public and others.
All the activities announced in the communication strategy were performed as planned: Roadmap — Inception Impact Assessment feedback, stakeholder conference, Civil Dialogue Group meetings and questionnaire, Member States meetings and questionnaire, and targeted consultations of experts from the non-governmental sector.
Roadmap — Inception Impact Assessment feedback
Overall, stakeholders welcomed the orientations set out in the Roadmap – Inception Impact Assessment 15 published for feedback on 28 October 2020. The Roadmap received 51 feedbacks.
The great majority of the respondents welcomed the Commission initiative to strengthen the Union system of GIs. The feedback mainly focused on sustainability aspects to make part of the product specification, and the need for improved protection and legislative clarifications. Those who commented on the future of the TSG scheme considered that it should be continued, clarified and simplified. A smaller number of respondents mentioned issues related to simplification, controls and enforcement, empowering GI producer groups and issues related to the use of the Union symbol on the label.
Conference on “Strengthening Geographical Indications”, 25-26 November 2020
A high-level conference was organised jointly by the Commission and the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), and served as the focal point for stakeholders to make their views known on the range of issues dealt with in the GI revision process. A large audience composed of GI producers, stakeholders across the food value chain, Member State officials, international and civil society organisations, EU officials as well as students and interested public took part of the event.
Besides the plenary opening and closing sessions, fifteen panels to discuss different issues of the GI review took place. Sustainability issues and empowerment of producers were also discussed to address the Farm to Fork initiative as well as ways to increase attractiveness of GIs, and modernise and better enforce GIs in line with the IP action plan.
The recorded conference and all the material (ppt. / video / audio / gallery) is available on the EUROPA web-page until November 2022 16 .
Contents
- Public consultation
- Consultation of the Civil Dialogue Group (CDG) on Quality and Promotion
- Title I: General provisions
- Title II: Geographical indications
- Chapter 2: Registration of geographical indications
- Chapter 3: Protection of geographical indications
- Chapter 4: Checks and enforcement
- Chapter 5: Supplementary elements of the registration procedure
- Chapter 6: Geographical indications of agricultural products
- Chapter 7: Procedural provisions
- Title III: Quality schemes
- Chapter 2: Optional quality terms
- Chapter 3: Procedural provisions
- Title V: Transitional and final provisions
From 15 January 2021 to 9 April 2021, the Commission conducted an open public consultation in all official EU languages via EU-SURVEY. Its aim was to gather the views of public authorities, stakeholders and the public. 302 contributions were received from respondents from 21 Member States.
The respondents identified the main challenges for the GI revision:
• Due to increased exploitation of reputation of GIs on the internet, there is a need to prevent fraud and the counterfeiting of GI products.
• GI producer groups should have greater powers and responsibilities to manage, promote and enforce their GIs. For the time being, they are not able to take decisions binding on their members.
• There is a lack of awareness of the logo, resulting from a lack of information and publicity about the benefits of GIs.
The CDG members represent interests of producers, processors, retailers, consumers, environmentalists and others. The Commission consulted the CDG Quality and Promotion during meetings on:
• 5 November 2020: information on the process; first discussion on the GI revision;
• 9 March 2021: discussion on the main needs for the revision of the GIs, with a focus on some elements including sustainability;
• 1 July 2021: results of the public consultation and the targeted consultation of the CDG; discussion on objectives and options;
• 30 November 2021: presentation of the outcome of the impact assessment process.
Similarly, as detailed above, the Commission also consulted the CDG Wine during its meetings on 5 May and 8 November 2021, and the CDG Spirit Drinks on 9 March and 29 October 2021.
The Commission also consulted the members of the CDG Quality and Promotion through a written questionnaire on the sustainability of GIs, the labelling and the TSG.
• Collection and use of expertise
The Commission consulted experts from the Member States in the framework of the Expert Group for Quality and Sustainability of Agriculture and Rural Development. Meetings of this Expert Group took place on:
• 23 February 2021: the context, challenges and objectives, and feedback on the Roadmap;
• 22 April 2021: results of the public consultation and the targeted consultation of the Expert group; overall approach;
• 23 September 2021: policy choices.
Prior to these meetings, the Commission also collected experience about implementation of the TSG scheme in the meeting of the Agricultural Policy Quality Committee on 19 October 2020, including in the form of a questionnaire.
The Commission also consulted the members of the Expert Group through a written questionnaire on the sustainability of GIs, simplification of the GI system with a focus on national process, relations with rural development policy and the TSG scheme.
As regards the sustainability, the driving opinion was that sustainability should not be imposed on the GI producers, but encouraged and accompanied. The existing practices in relation to sustainability are to be acknowledged and promoted. Member States’ experts stressed particularly the importance of a gradual integration of sustainability requirements. There is a need for more support (e.g. for sustainability certification, relevant investments) and other forms of incentives (e.g. priority in funding) as well as information and promotion actions. With regard to concerns about nutritious food and healthy diet, the main opinion was that the focus on nutritional values and dietary needs should not dilute the concept of origin in GIs, i.e. of quality achieved through the correlation between human factors and natural factors in a given geographical area.
While the experts welcomed further simplification of procedures and reduction of administrative burden, they also indicated that a thorough and accurate examination of GI applications should precede over speed. Several experts favoured a better harmonisation of the procedural rules for all sectors and advocated for better guidelines and exchange of information to facilitate the circulation of best practices, in combination with a better performing IT application.
With regard to the main difficulties in the national procedure, two main elements stand out. First, bringing producers together in an active organisation appears to be difficult, because of limited time and resources. Producers show reluctance to cooperate at an early stage of a GI registration, and can disagree on the definition of the production process in a product specification. Drafting the product specification is the second difficulty encountered by producers: struggle in gathering evidence supporting that the product meets requirements for a GI, unclear description of the product specificities, lack of knowledge on which information is required, etc.
As regards the relation with rural development interventions, the majority of experts indicated the objective should not be only to raise consumers’ awareness and promote the GI policy, but also to increase producers’ competitiveness, encourage them to apply for the protection and improve sustainability.
Experts explained that the registration procedure for TSGs is considered complex and burdensome, hence clarification of criteria could be envisaged. They insisted on the fact that allowing TSGs to be freely produced outside their country of origin refrains producers from participating in the scheme, as they do not see the benefit of taking the registration burden.
• Impact assessment
The work on the Impact Assessment was carried out from October 2020 to September 2021, during which an inter-service steering group met four times. Representatives of twelve Directorates General and Commission Services (ISSG), and of EUIPO participated in the group. The content of the impact assessment report has been developed and improved with the contributions and comments of the services that participated actively to this ISSG.
The Regulatory Scrutiny Board issued a negative opinion on the draft Impact Assessment Report following the meeting on 30 June 2021. The main observations of the Board included:
• The report does not provide a clear rationale and sufficient evidence to support the need for action in the areas of sustainability, healthy diets, use of logos and supply chain imbalances.
• The report does not bring out clearly enough the available policy choices. It does not explore sufficiently alternative combinations of policy actions that could offer a better mix or are politically most relevant.
• The report is not sufficiently clear on the involvement of an agency and the related costs.
• The report does not sufficiently differentiate the views of different stakeholders on key issues.
The ISSG was consulted in writing during the period 10-15 September 2021 on the revised version of the Impact Assessment Report, following the comments of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. Comments were duly taken into account in the revised version.
The required clarifications and complements were added in the Impact Assessment Report and its Annexes and resubmitted to the Board on 25 September 2021. On this basis, the Board issued a positive opinion with reservations 17 on 24 October 2021. While acknowledging improvements in the report, the Board requested further clarifications on the following issues:
• The selection of the preferred set of policy actions is not coherent with the rest of the report. The report does not provide a clear identification and consistent assessment and comparison of alternative policy action packages.
• The report does not sufficiently justify the preferred policy action regarding the involvement of an agency.
• The views of different categories of stakeholders are not sufficiently reflected in the main report.
All comments of the Board were addressed in the final version of the Impact Assessment Report and its executive summary 18 .
The impact assessment process tested three policy options for the revision of GIs.
The first option — Improve and support — aims at improving the instruments already in place and providing further support to producers, Member States’ authorities and other stakeholders. Main focus is on guidance (e.g. linked to enforcement, the assessment of files and legal interpretation/clarification), re-enforced cooperation among Member States and capacity building activities, including on sustainability issues. Procedures will be improved by aligning them across the sectors. A more flexible approach towards the Union logos is targeting their increased use by producers.
The TSG scheme is replaced by an official recognition of traditional agricultural products and foodstuffs by Member States’ authorities with a limited list of criteria to be set at the Union level while Member States would notify the names of traditional products to the Commission in order to be made public.
The second option — Better define and reinforce — reinforces the protection of GIs and improves the level playing field amongst operators through a single set of control procedures for all sectors and the development of detailed rules on the respect of GIs in relation to internet sales. It also defines the role GI producer groups can play, on a voluntary basis, in contributing to addressing the societal concerns on sustainability through inclusion of sustainability criteria in product specifications, and in strengthening the management and enforcement of their GI assets. The specific roles of GI producer groups, recognised by Member States’ authorities, would be extended to all sectors. The use of the logo on the product label is not obligatory and producers can decide on its size and place on the label. Legislation will benefit from clarifications of the legal terminology, built-in flexibilities regarding the production process and the creation of a single set of simplified procedural rules.
As part of this option, Union management structures for assessing GIs are to be reinforced through involvement of an existing agency in the registration procedure. While the national level assessment would remain with Member States, an agency would provide technical assistance to the Commission during the EU-level scrutiny of applications and oppositions. While the Impact Assessment Report implicitly foresees decisions also taken by an agency, for reasons of retaining close legislative control, the Commission shall take all legal decisions.
The third option — Harmonise and upgrade — ensures full harmonisation through the creation of a single Regulation containing unified enforcement and control rules. Similarly, provisions related to protection and procedural rules will be streamlined into one single basic act. Use of the prescribed logos is obligatory across all sectors. However, harmonisation will not affect GI definitions and will maintain the specificities of particular sectors. Sustainability criteria for GI production would be defined in the Union legislation and enforced via their integration in the product specification, making them subject to official controls. In addition to the actions provided under the previous policy option, specific guidelines on the functioning of the GI producer groups will strengthen their position in the GI value chains and allow for better management of their GI assets.
This option envisages to fully outsource the registration process to an existing agency, and provides the possibility of an appeal to an appellate body. It allows for various degrees of involvement of Member States: initial national level assessment as under current rules, consultation of Member States or no involvement of Member States.
The TSG scheme would be abandoned. Those traditional food names that are able to meet the criteria for a PDO or a PGI could be registered as such while other traditional names could be registered as a trade mark.
The impact assessment has concluded that the second option has the most merits. This option scores the highest as regards the comparison of costs and benefits for GI producers. While producers will benefit from a faster and better protection, the costs, notably related to the length of the registration procedure and resources needed, will decrease. Voluntary inclusion by the GI producer group of sustainability criteria in the product specification would entail additional compliance and certification costs that could be partly offset by support measures in the framework of the rural development policy; this would meet consumers’ expectations for products with a higher ambition in sustainability aspects.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
The proposal is based on a regulatory fitness check and the analysis of the simplification potential.
The proposed Regulation simplifies administration of GIs by proving for a single set of procedural and control rules for all sectors. It harmonises the protection provisions for all sectors as well. It thus ensures coherence and makes the system of GIs more easily understandable for stakeholders.
The main elements of simplification are:
• a single set of rules for application processes and controls, with benefits in terms of coherence of rules across sectors, ending current divergences in procedures;
• clarifications are introduced in particular in relation to IPR;
• simpler concepts are introduced, notably in the TSG scheme, to improve their understanding for producers and consumers
As regards the reduction of administrative burden, the proposal provides for technical assistance in the registration procedure by an existing EU agency and full exploitation of digital tools. The impact assessment shows that technical assistance will result in improvements in length of time, quality of applications (due to feedback cycle), quality of assessments and burden reduction on producers and Member States. This will require less public administration capacity and resources, and will shorten the registration time.
The new domain name information and alert system to be established by EUIPO shall provide GI applicants with an additional digital tool as part of the application process to better protect and enforce their GI rights.
• Fundamental rights
The Union is obliged under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 19 (Article 17(2)) to protect intellectual property. The measures foreseen will create better conditions for the protection of GIs and decrease the risk of usurpation, imitation and evocation of GI names, thus contributing to securing producers’ incomes. A more harmonised approach to procedural rules should result in a more efficient registration process, with shorter registration times, reduced burdens on producers and higher quality of registration processes, thereby respecting the Commission’s obligation to handle GI applications impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal does not have any budgetary implications.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The implementation of the measures will be monitored and reported upon, based on the core monitoring indicators for the main operational objectives, listed in the Impact Assessment Report.
To monitor contribution of GIs to sustainable development and ensure transparency, GIview includes a section for each registered geographical indication where Member States’ authorities will include the sustainability statement.
The 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making provides that the three Institutions agree to systematically consider the use of review clauses in legislation, and that account is taken of the time needed for implementation and for gathering evidence on results and impacts. Based on this, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation no sooner than five years after the date of application of the Regulation. The evaluation will be conducted according to the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
The proposal consists of a set of rules designed to put in place a coherent system for GIs aimed at assisting producers to better communicate the qualities, characteristics and attributes of their GI products, and at ensuring appropriate consumer information. Moreover, the proposal clarifies and improves the TSG scheme while it makes no changes to the scheme for optional quality terms.
The proposal includes the following provisions:
General provisions define the subject being the GIs, protecting the names of wines, spirit drinks and agricultural products. They also provide the definitions of terms specifically used in the Regulation, as well as data protection rules.
Chapter 1: General provisions
The general provisions explain that the objective of the GI system is to provide a unitary and exclusive system protecting the names of wines, spirit drinks and agricultural products having characteristics, attributes and reputation linked to their place of production. [LS: They provide the classification of products covered. They also provide the definitions of terms specifically used in this Title.
This Chapter provides notably for the uniform rules for registration, both at national and Union level including the opposition procedure; defines the applicant and lists requirements for the applicant; specifies the content of application documents, and defines the role of the register. It lays down the transitional protection and transitional measures. It also includes provisions on the amendments to the product specification and on the cancellation of the registered GI.
The level of protection of GIs is laid down in this Chapter. The Chapter also lays down rules for GIs when used as ingredients, clarifies generic terms and registration of homonymous GIs, as well as the relationship with trade marks. It provides rules for the recognised producer groups. The relationship with the use of terms in internet domain names is defined. Finally, this Chapter includes the rules for the use of Union symbols, indications and abbreviations on the labelling and advertising material of the product concerned.
The rules on the checks are laid down in this Chapter, including both verification that a product designated by a GI has been produced in conformity with the corresponding product specification; and monitoring of the use of GIs in the marketplace. It also prescribes mutual assistance between Member states’ authorities. Finally, it requires that the proof of certification should be provided by the enforcement authorities on a request by a producer.
Under this Chapter, criteria are established for monitoring the performance of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) which will provide technical assistance to the Commission as regards the scrutiny of applications.
This Chapter provides for the definition of a Protected Designation of Origin and a Protected Geographical Indication for agricultural products. It prescribes the content of the product specification and of the single document for GIs of agricultural products. Besides this, it includes rules that are specific for this sector, notably on plant varieties and animal breeds, the sourcing of feed and of raw materials.
This Chapter lays down that the Commission shall be assisted by the Geographical Indications Committee
Chapter 8: Transitional and final provisions (geographical indications)
This Chapter lays down that the Commission shall be assisted by the Geographical Indications Committee. It also provides for the continuity of the registers and clarifies the rules for applications submitted before the entry into force of this Regulation.
Chapter 1: Traditional specialities guaranteed
This Chapter lays down the rules for the TSG scheme. In comparison to the existing rules, it clarifies the criteria for the registration of TSGs; notably, it no longer requires those to have a specific character. Procedural rules are also clarified and streamlined.
This Chapter lays down the rules for optional quality terms. No changes have been done to the existing legislation in this area.
This Chapter lays down that the Commission shall be assisted by the Agricultural Quality Committee.
Title IV: Amendments to Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2019/787 and (EU) 2017/1001 [BT: order of Regulations]
This Title includes the provisions amending Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and Regulation (EU) 2019/787, notably due to a new harmonised set of rules for protection, registration procedure and control and enforcement, laid down in the previous chapters of this Regulation. It amends Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 to give to EUIPO the tasks of administration of geographical indications.
The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in the Regulation. This Chapter also clarifies the transitional rules, notably that the applications submitted before the entry into force of this Regulation have to respect the rules applicable before its entry into force. The entry into force of the Regulation is defined on the [...] day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.