Fons Iuris
Torna alla ricerca
Corte di giustizia UEsentenza

Corte di giustizia UE n. 1151/2026

ECLI:EU:T:2026:144
Testo integrale del provvedimento

Testo integrale del provvedimento

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA])

25 February 2026 ( * ) ( Agriculture – Protected geographical indications – Application for a protected geographical indication ‘Монгол Тогтвортой ноолуур/[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1151/2012 – Scope – Application of the combined nomenclature – Error of law )

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑383/24,

[OSCURATO:SOCIETA],

established in Como (Italy), represented by D. Luff and M. Ledwoś, lawyers, applicant, v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA],

represented by M. Konstantinidis and D. Gauci, acting as Agents, defendant,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]),

composed, at the time of the deliberations, of A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], J. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and W. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: H. Eriksson, Administrator, having regard to the written part of the procedure, further to the hearing on 3 October 2025, gives the following

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

1 By its action under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, the applicant, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA], seeks annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2024/1224 of 30 April 2024 rejecting an application for protection of a geographical indication in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1151/2012 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ‘Монгол Тогтвортой ноолуур/[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ (PGI) (OJ L, 2024/1224) (‘the contested decision’).

Background to the dispute 2 The applicant is a company governed by Italian law that represents and is controlled by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Herders (MNFPUG). [OSCURATO:PERSONA] federation groups together 1 754 national cooperatives of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] nomadic herders which have assigned the applicant exclusive rights to trade their [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cashmere in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 3 On 22 December 2022, the applicant filed an application for the registration of the name ‘Монгол Тогтвортой ноолуур/[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ (‘the name at issue’) as a protected geographical indication (PGI) pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1151/2012 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

In that application, the product was described as the fibre from the fleece of the cashmere goat ( Capra hircus ), a ‘kind of wool’ falling within ‘Class

2.15. wool’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] XI to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 (OJ 2014 L 179, p. 36). 4 After examining the application for registration, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by letter of 5 April 2023, stated that it did not satisfy the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, on the ground that cashmere could not be designated as wool, since those two products were distinct. 5 By letter of 7 April 2023, sent to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 20 April 2023, the applicant submitted observations on the letter of 5 April 2023, disputing principally the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) for the purposes of interpreting [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 6 By letter of 30 October 2023, the applicant informed the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of alleged irregularities in the registration procedure for the name at issue. 7 On 6 December 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied to the applicant, stating, inter alia, that the irregularity relating to the six-month period laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 was unfounded, since that period referred to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s scrutiny of the application after the date of receipt of that application, and not after the issuance of certification.

It also stated that the observations submitted by the applicant were under review. 8 By letter of 12 January 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed the applicant that, on the basis of the information provided, the application for registration did not satisfy the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 and that it intended to adopt a formal decision rejecting that application, on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(1) of that regulation. 9 By the contested decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rejected the application for registration of the name at issue as a PGI on the ground that that application related to a product which did not fall within the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

Forms of order sought 10 The applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: – annul the contested decision; – order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. 11 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: – dismiss the action; – order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law 12 In support of its action, the applicant raises, in essence, five pleas in law, alleging (i) an error of law with regard to the interpretation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012; (ii) a manifest error of assessment of the product covered by the application for registration at issue; (iii) breach of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations; (iv) infringement of the time limit laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012; and (v) breach of the principle of good administration. 13 It is appropriate to begin by examining the first plea, alleging an error of law with regard to the interpretation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 14 In the contested decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] took the view that cashmere did not fall within the material scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

In reaching that conclusion, it noted, first, that cashmere is listed neither in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty nor in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation, which mentions only wool. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it explained that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty, being a transfer of the relevant classification in the Brussels nomenclature, which served as the basis for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CN) established by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, uses the CN to determine which specific products fall under every category listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that Treaty and that, consequently, the same approach is to be adopted for the purposes of determining the specific products falling under each category of product listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

On that basis, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concluded that wool and cashmere are two distinct products, since, according to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, the term ‘wool’ refers to fibre grown by sheep or lambs, whereas the expression ‘fine animal hair’ refers to the hair of certain species of goats, including the cashmere goat, and, in addition, cashmere cannot be regarded as a subcategory of wool, as is evident from the respective CN codes of the two products in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, where wool is classified under CN code 5101 and cashmere under CN code 5102. 15 The applicant claims that, by referring to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 in order to interpret the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in law. 16 First, the applicant submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot justify the reference to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 by reference to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty.

In particular, it submits that that annex concerns only products covered by the common agricultural policy and not wool products, which fall under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 and Part 2 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] XI to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014. 17 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant complains that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] referred to the CN in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, even though the EU legislature did not expressly refer to the CN in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

It asserts that those two regulations are separate legal acts with different aims and maintains that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 does not constitute an appropriate legal basis for interpreting [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 due to a lack of correspondence between their categories of products. 18 Third, the applicant submits that, even if a reference by analogy to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 were permissible, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not justify the choice of CN codes at four-digit level instead of at two-digit level.

It claims that those codes do not reflect industry realities and cannot constitute an objective method of interpretation of geographical indications.

In its view, the most relevant approach is to rely on the ordinary meaning of the words. 19 Similarly, the applicant disputes, in the context of the second plea, the restrictive interpretation of the term ‘wool’ adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which it considers to be contrary to the common meaning of that term and to the objectives of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

It relies in that regard on the definition given by the textile industry and that on the Wikipedia page devoted to cashmere wool. 20 Fourth, the applicant asserts that the Chinese name ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ for the product category ‘Other products of animal origin – cashmere’ is already protected as a geographical indication in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as is apparent from the information notice of 2 December 2022 on geographical indications of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of China (OJ 2022 C 459, p. 17). 21 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments. 22 In the first place, it submits that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 refers to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty and to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation. 23 Next, it considers that, since CN codes are used to determine the specific category of products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty, it was justified, by analogy, to apply the same approach in the contested decision to determine the category of specific products in each class referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

Contrary to what the applicant claims, according to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], there was no need to apply another method of interpretation, since the objective of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 is to supplement the list of products in order to determine the scope of that regulation. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adds that, in the absence of specialised legislation governing ‘wool’ or ‘cashmere’, it correctly used the detailed list of products set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87.

Furthermore, it emphasises that this objective method of interpretation was formally adopted by the legislature in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2024/1143 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 11 April 2024 on geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, as well as traditional specialities guaranteed and optional quality terms for agricultural products, amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2019/787 and (EU) 2019/1753 and repealing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 (OJ L, 2024/1143) to determine its scope. 24 Lastly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that neither recital 15 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 nor [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014 calls into question its method of interpretation by reference to the CN in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87. 25 In the second place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that, with regard to the choice of CN codes at four-digit level, those are necessary where the chapter of the CN in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 covers several categories of products, as is the case with Chapter 51, entitled ‘Wool, fine or coarse animal hair; horsehair yarn and woven fabric’. 26 In the third place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the protection of the name ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ concerns fresh meat of the cashmere goat and not the fine hair of that animal.

Consequently, the indication of the class ‘Other products of animal origin – cashmere’ in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 2 December 2022 is ‘simply an inaccuracy’. 27 In the fourth place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the ongoing negotiations on the agreement between the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Mongolia, which form part of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2021-2027, cannot alter its analysis in the contested decision. 28 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, even though [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 was repealed and replaced, with effect from 13 May 2024, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143, the fact remains that, having regard to the date of the application for registration of the name at issue, namely 22 December 2022, which is decisive for the purposes of identifying the applicable substantive law, the facts of the case are governed by the substantive provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2021/2117 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 2 December 2021 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 262) (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 December 2010, Bavaria , C‑120/08, EU:C:2010:798, paragraph 42). 29 The first subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 provides that it covers agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty and other agricultural products and foodstuffs listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation.

Recital 15 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 states that its scope is to be limited to the agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty and to a list of products outside the scope of that annex that are closely linked to agricultural production or to the rural economy. 30 It follows that the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 is defined by reference to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty with regard to ‘agricultural products intended for human consumption’ and by reference to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation as regards ‘other agricultural products and foodstuffs’. 31 In that regard, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty expressly refers to the Brussels nomenclature, established by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for the Classification of Goods in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], signed in Brussels on 15 December 1950.

By contrast, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 does not contain any reference to that nomenclature or to the CN. 32 It should be noted that ‘wool’ is included in the list of agricultural products and foodstuffs set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], neither that regulation nor [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014 contains a definition of that term. 33 According to settled case-law, the meaning and scope of terms for which EU law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (see, to that effect, judgments of 10 March 2005, easyCar , C‑336/03, EU:C:2005:150, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited, and of 7 May 2019, Germany v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

, T‑239/17, EU:T:2019:289, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited). 34 Furthermore, the preamble to an EU measure may explain the latter’s content (see judgment of 10 January 2006, IATA and ELFAA , C‑344/04, EU:C:2006:10, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited). 35 In the absence of a definition of the concept of ‘wool’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had recourse, in the contested decision, to the customs classification resulting from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 establishing the CN in order to determine whether cashmere falls within the category of ‘wool’ products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation. 36 The applicant criticises the method followed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in determining the material scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

It submits that, in the absence of a definition of the term ‘wool’, it had to be interpreted in accordance with its usual meaning, taking into account the context and objectives pursued by that regulation. 37 With regard to the recourse to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, establishing the CN, it should be noted that – in contrast to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty, which expressly refers to the Brussels nomenclature in listing the agricultural products intended for human consumption – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 makes no reference, whether direct or indirect, to that nomenclature or to the CN. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] XI to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014, which lays down the rules for the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, simply provides that wool falls under ‘Class

2.15. wool’, without further clarification or reference to a customs classification. 38 It follows that if the EU legislature had intended the CN to be used to identify the products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, it would have expressly stated so, as was done, in the Treaties, for agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty.

The fact that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 does not make any such reference leads to the conclusion that the products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation are not to be defined by reference to their customs classification. 39 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] conclusion is confirmed by the travaux préparatoires for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

It is apparent from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s proposal of 10 December 2010 for a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on agricultural product quality schemes (COM(2010) 733 final) that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had proposed to refer to the CN codes for the products referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] II to that proposal concerning optional quality terms and not for the products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that proposal concerning, inter alia, designations of origin and geographical indications. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], neither such an [OSCURATO:PERSONA] II concerning optional quality terms and referring to the CN nor indeed any reference to the CN appears in the text of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 adopted by the legislature. 40 It is true that some EU measures, in fields other than those relating to customs or external trade, refer to the CN in order to define a product, but that reference is always expressly worded. 41 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is the case of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143, repealing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, which makes several references to the CN and, in particular, delimits its material scope inter alia to the agricultural products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I thereto by way of a direct reference to the CN codes. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as is apparent from paragraph 28 above, that regulation is not applicable ratione temporis to the present dispute and, moreover, cannot be used for the interpretation of the provisions of the regulation that it repealed. 42 Consequently, the use of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 in order to define the material scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 made by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in the contested decision cannot be justified in the absence of an express reference in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 43 Furthermore, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 33 above, in the absence of a definition of the term ‘wool’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 and in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014, that term must be interpreted according to its usual meaning. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is, moreover, consistent with the requirement in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014 that the single document referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(c) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 must describe the product ‘using definitions and standards commonly used for that product’. 44 In that regard, it should be noted that, in French, the dictionary

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

defines the term ‘laine’ as a ‘soft material derived from sheepskin hair (and from the skin of a few mammals)’.

Similarly, in English, the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries define the term ‘wool’ as ‘the soft hair that covers the body of sheep and some other animals’ and, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA],

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

states that the term ‘Wolle’ designates ‘hair from sheep or other animals used in the manufacture of textiles’. 45 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not carry out such an examination of the usual meaning of the term ‘wool’, although it is apparent both from the documents produced by the applicant and from a number of dictionaries in various languages, on which the parties were given the opportunity to comment at the hearing, that that term may in fact cover not only hair from sheep but also hair from other mammals, such as goats, including the cashmere goat.

Moreover, recital 10 of the contested decision, far from confirming the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s approach, refers to the possibility of labelling the hair of the cashmere goat, on textile products, as ‘cashmere wool’. 46 With regard to the context in which the term ‘wool’ is used, it should be noted that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, adopted inter alia on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 43(2) TFEU, is an instrument of the common agricultural policy.

By contrast, the CN, established by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, is a tool for the classification of goods, put in place to meet the requirements of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the statistical requirements of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] external trade and the objectives of other Community policies relating to the importation or exportation of goods.

It therefore pursues objectives distinct from those of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, which falls within the quality policy of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

Consequently, if the EU legislature had intended to refer to the CN in the context of the quality system for agricultural and food products established by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, it would have done so expressly. 47 With regard to the objectives pursued by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, it is apparent in particular from a combined reading of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(2) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of that regulation, and from recitals 2, 3, 4, 15 and 18 thereof, that the rules for geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs is intended primarily to protect and to enhance the value of products linked to a specific geographical origin. 48 In the light of the objectives pursued by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, there is no justification, in relation to the registration of a PGI, in the absence of an express reference to the CN, for interpreting the concept of ‘wool’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation according to the animal from which it is derived on the basis of the CN, in the present case by distinguishing between goat hair and sheep hair, in the absence of other circumstances justifying that distinction. 49 The introduction, by way of interpretation, of such a distinction on the basis of the CN and, consequently, the restriction of the material scope of the regulation risks contravening the objectives of protection and enhancement of value of agricultural products pursued by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

In the present case, the use of the CN gives rise to a reduction in the scope of that regulation by comparison with the usual meaning of the term ‘wool’. 50 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] finding cannot be called into question by the transitional provision on the classification of geographical indications in the new [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143.

Admittedly, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 89 of that regulation, ‘the classification referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of geographical indications registered or applied for before 13 May 2024 shall be made in accordance with the table set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] III.’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] III, entitled ‘Table of correspondence concerning classification as referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 89’, provides that ‘Class

2.15. Wool’ now corresponds to CN 5101. 51 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 89 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 is not intended to define retroactively the meaning of the term ‘wool’ in the context of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

Neither the wording of that regulation nor its recitals indicate that the legislature intended to provide an interpretation of the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

The sole purpose of that provision is to ensure a smooth transition from the old to the new regime. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 establishes a new mechanism, by providing, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6, that products designated by geographical indications are to be classified ‘in accordance with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] at two, four, six or, where a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] so decides, eight-digit level’, for registration, statistical and record keeping purposes, in particular for customs authorities. 52 The table of correspondence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] III to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 is thus a mere tool intended to ensure the transition to the new system and to facilitate the keeping of records with the appropriate codes, without retroactively altering the material scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 53 Contrary to what the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims, the explicit introduction of the CN into [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 does not constitute the codification of a pre-existing administrative practice.

Apart from the fact that that assertion is not supported by any evidence, it cannot be accepted on the ground that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 does not constitute a reiteration of previous provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012.

By way of illustration, although [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 defines agricultural products on the basis of the CN, it nevertheless expressly refers, inter alia, not only to the CN code of wool, but also to the CN code for fine hair, which includes cashmere.

Consequently, the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 cannot be determined by reference to that of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143, since those two regulations follow a different organisation in that regard. 54 It follows that, in the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] incorrectly used the CN to determine the scope of the concept of ‘wool’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 and thus exclude ‘cashmere’ from the material scope of that regulation. 55 Accordingly, the first plea in law, alleging that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in law in its interpretation of the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, must be upheld. 56 Consequently, the contested decision must be annulled, without there being any need to examine the other pleas in law relied on by the applicant.

Costs 57 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 58 Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant.

On those grounds,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA])

hereby:

1. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2024/1224 of 30 April 2024 rejecting an application for protection of a geographical indication in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1151/2012 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ‘Монгол Тогтвортой ноолуур/[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ (PGI);

2. Orders the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in open court in Luxembourg on 25 February 2026.

V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]

M. van der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.

Anonimizzato ex art. 52 D.Lgs. 196/2003
[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 25 February 2026 ( * ) ( Agriculture – Protected geographical indications – Application for a protected geographical indication ‘Монгол Тогтвортой ноолуур/[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1151/2012 – Scope – Application of the combined nomenclature – Error of law ) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑383/24, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA], established in Como (Italy), represented by D. Luff and M. Ledwoś, lawyers, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by M. Konstantinidis and D. Gauci, acting as Agents, defendant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed, at the time of the deliberations, of A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], J. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and W. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: H. Eriksson, Administrator, having regard to the written part of the procedure, further to the hearing on 3 October 2025, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its action under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, the applicant, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA], seeks annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2024/1224 of 30 April 2024 rejecting an application for protection of a geographical indication in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1151/2012 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ‘Монгол Тогтвортой ноолуур/[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ (PGI) (OJ L, 2024/1224) (‘the contested decision’). Background to the dispute 2 The applicant is a company governed by Italian law that represents and is controlled by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Herders (MNFPUG). [OSCURATO:PERSONA] federation groups together 1 754 national cooperatives of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] nomadic herders which have assigned the applicant exclusive rights to trade their [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cashmere in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 3 On 22 December 2022, the applicant filed an application for the registration of the name ‘Монгол Тогтвортой ноолуур/[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ (‘the name at issue’) as a protected geographical indication (PGI) pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1151/2012 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1). In that application, the product was described as the fibre from the fleece of the cashmere goat ( Capra hircus ), a ‘kind of wool’ falling within ‘Class 2.15. wool’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] XI to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 (OJ 2014 L 179, p. 36). 4 After examining the application for registration, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by letter of 5 April 2023, stated that it did not satisfy the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, on the ground that cashmere could not be designated as wool, since those two products were distinct. 5 By letter of 7 April 2023, sent to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 20 April 2023, the applicant submitted observations on the letter of 5 April 2023, disputing principally the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) for the purposes of interpreting [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 6 By letter of 30 October 2023, the applicant informed the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of alleged irregularities in the registration procedure for the name at issue. 7 On 6 December 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied to the applicant, stating, inter alia, that the irregularity relating to the six-month period laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 was unfounded, since that period referred to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s scrutiny of the application after the date of receipt of that application, and not after the issuance of certification. It also stated that the observations submitted by the applicant were under review. 8 By letter of 12 January 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed the applicant that, on the basis of the information provided, the application for registration did not satisfy the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 and that it intended to adopt a formal decision rejecting that application, on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(1) of that regulation. 9 By the contested decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rejected the application for registration of the name at issue as a PGI on the ground that that application related to a product which did not fall within the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. Forms of order sought 10 The applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        annul the contested decision; –        order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. 11 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the action; –        order the applicant to pay the costs. Law 12 In support of its action, the applicant raises, in essence, five pleas in law, alleging (i) an error of law with regard to the interpretation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012; (ii) a manifest error of assessment of the product covered by the application for registration at issue; (iii) breach of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations; (iv) infringement of the time limit laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012; and (v) breach of the principle of good administration. 13 It is appropriate to begin by examining the first plea, alleging an error of law with regard to the interpretation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 14 In the contested decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] took the view that cashmere did not fall within the material scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. In reaching that conclusion, it noted, first, that cashmere is listed neither in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty nor in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation, which mentions only wool. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it explained that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty, being a transfer of the relevant classification in the Brussels nomenclature, which served as the basis for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CN) established by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, uses the CN to determine which specific products fall under every category listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that Treaty and that, consequently, the same approach is to be adopted for the purposes of determining the specific products falling under each category of product listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. On that basis, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concluded that wool and cashmere are two distinct products, since, according to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, the term ‘wool’ refers to fibre grown by sheep or lambs, whereas the expression ‘fine animal hair’ refers to the hair of certain species of goats, including the cashmere goat, and, in addition, cashmere cannot be regarded as a subcategory of wool, as is evident from the respective CN codes of the two products in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, where wool is classified under CN code 5101 and cashmere under CN code 5102. 15 The applicant claims that, by referring to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 in order to interpret the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in law. 16 First, the applicant submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot justify the reference to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 by reference to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty. In particular, it submits that that annex concerns only products covered by the common agricultural policy and not wool products, which fall under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 and Part 2 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] XI to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014. 17 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant complains that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] referred to the CN in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, even though the EU legislature did not expressly refer to the CN in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. It asserts that those two regulations are separate legal acts with different aims and maintains that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 does not constitute an appropriate legal basis for interpreting [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 due to a lack of correspondence between their categories of products. 18 Third, the applicant submits that, even if a reference by analogy to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 were permissible, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not justify the choice of CN codes at four-digit level instead of at two-digit level. It claims that those codes do not reflect industry realities and cannot constitute an objective method of interpretation of geographical indications. In its view, the most relevant approach is to rely on the ordinary meaning of the words. 19 Similarly, the applicant disputes, in the context of the second plea, the restrictive interpretation of the term ‘wool’ adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which it considers to be contrary to the common meaning of that term and to the objectives of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. It relies in that regard on the definition given by the textile industry and that on the Wikipedia page devoted to cashmere wool. 20 Fourth, the applicant asserts that the Chinese name ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ for the product category ‘Other products of animal origin – cashmere’ is already protected as a geographical indication in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as is apparent from the information notice of 2 December 2022 on geographical indications of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of China (OJ 2022 C 459, p. 17). 21 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments. 22 In the first place, it submits that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 refers to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty and to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation. 23 Next, it considers that, since CN codes are used to determine the specific category of products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty, it was justified, by analogy, to apply the same approach in the contested decision to determine the category of specific products in each class referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. Contrary to what the applicant claims, according to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], there was no need to apply another method of interpretation, since the objective of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 is to supplement the list of products in order to determine the scope of that regulation. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adds that, in the absence of specialised legislation governing ‘wool’ or ‘cashmere’, it correctly used the detailed list of products set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87. Furthermore, it emphasises that this objective method of interpretation was formally adopted by the legislature in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2024/1143 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 11 April 2024 on geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, as well as traditional specialities guaranteed and optional quality terms for agricultural products, amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2019/787 and (EU) 2019/1753 and repealing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 (OJ L, 2024/1143) to determine its scope. 24 Lastly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that neither recital 15 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 nor [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014 calls into question its method of interpretation by reference to the CN in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87. 25 In the second place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that, with regard to the choice of CN codes at four-digit level, those are necessary where the chapter of the CN in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 covers several categories of products, as is the case with Chapter 51, entitled ‘Wool, fine or coarse animal hair; horsehair yarn and woven fabric’. 26 In the third place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the protection of the name ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ concerns fresh meat of the cashmere goat and not the fine hair of that animal. Consequently, the indication of the class ‘Other products of animal origin – cashmere’ in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 2 December 2022 is ‘simply an inaccuracy’. 27 In the fourth place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the ongoing negotiations on the agreement between the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Mongolia, which form part of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2021-2027, cannot alter its analysis in the contested decision. 28 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, even though [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 was repealed and replaced, with effect from 13 May 2024, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143, the fact remains that, having regard to the date of the application for registration of the name at issue, namely 22 December 2022, which is decisive for the purposes of identifying the applicable substantive law, the facts of the case are governed by the substantive provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2021/2117 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 2 December 2021 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 262) (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 December 2010, Bavaria , C‑120/08, EU:C:2010:798, paragraph 42). 29 The first subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 provides that it covers agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty and other agricultural products and foodstuffs listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation. Recital 15 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 states that its scope is to be limited to the agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty and to a list of products outside the scope of that annex that are closely linked to agricultural production or to the rural economy. 30 It follows that the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 is defined by reference to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty with regard to ‘agricultural products intended for human consumption’ and by reference to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation as regards ‘other agricultural products and foodstuffs’. 31 In that regard, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty expressly refers to the Brussels nomenclature, established by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for the Classification of Goods in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], signed in Brussels on 15 December 1950. By contrast, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 does not contain any reference to that nomenclature or to the CN. 32 It should be noted that ‘wool’ is included in the list of agricultural products and foodstuffs set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], neither that regulation nor [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014 contains a definition of that term. 33 According to settled case-law, the meaning and scope of terms for which EU law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (see, to that effect, judgments of 10 March 2005, easyCar , C‑336/03, EU:C:2005:150, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited, and of 7 May 2019, Germany v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑239/17, EU:T:2019:289, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited). 34 Furthermore, the preamble to an EU measure may explain the latter’s content (see judgment of 10 January 2006, IATA and ELFAA , C‑344/04, EU:C:2006:10, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited). 35 In the absence of a definition of the concept of ‘wool’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had recourse, in the contested decision, to the customs classification resulting from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 establishing the CN in order to determine whether cashmere falls within the category of ‘wool’ products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation. 36 The applicant criticises the method followed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in determining the material scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. It submits that, in the absence of a definition of the term ‘wool’, it had to be interpreted in accordance with its usual meaning, taking into account the context and objectives pursued by that regulation. 37 With regard to the recourse to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, establishing the CN, it should be noted that – in contrast to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty, which expressly refers to the Brussels nomenclature in listing the agricultural products intended for human consumption – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 makes no reference, whether direct or indirect, to that nomenclature or to the CN. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] XI to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014, which lays down the rules for the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, simply provides that wool falls under ‘Class 2.15. wool’, without further clarification or reference to a customs classification. 38 It follows that if the EU legislature had intended the CN to be used to identify the products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, it would have expressly stated so, as was done, in the Treaties, for agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to the FEU Treaty. The fact that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 does not make any such reference leads to the conclusion that the products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation are not to be defined by reference to their customs classification. 39 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] conclusion is confirmed by the travaux préparatoires for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. It is apparent from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s proposal of 10 December 2010 for a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on agricultural product quality schemes (COM(2010) 733 final) that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had proposed to refer to the CN codes for the products referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] II to that proposal concerning optional quality terms and not for the products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that proposal concerning, inter alia, designations of origin and geographical indications. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], neither such an [OSCURATO:PERSONA] II concerning optional quality terms and referring to the CN nor indeed any reference to the CN appears in the text of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 adopted by the legislature. 40 It is true that some EU measures, in fields other than those relating to customs or external trade, refer to the CN in order to define a product, but that reference is always expressly worded. 41 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is the case of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143, repealing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, which makes several references to the CN and, in particular, delimits its material scope inter alia to the agricultural products listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I thereto by way of a direct reference to the CN codes. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as is apparent from paragraph 28 above, that regulation is not applicable ratione temporis to the present dispute and, moreover, cannot be used for the interpretation of the provisions of the regulation that it repealed. 42 Consequently, the use of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87 in order to define the material scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 made by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in the contested decision cannot be justified in the absence of an express reference in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 43 Furthermore, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 33 above, in the absence of a definition of the term ‘wool’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 and in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014, that term must be interpreted according to its usual meaning. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is, moreover, consistent with the requirement in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 668/2014 that the single document referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(c) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 must describe the product ‘using definitions and standards commonly used for that product’. 44 In that regard, it should be noted that, in French, the dictionary [OSCURATO:PERSONA] defines the term ‘laine’ as a ‘soft material derived from sheepskin hair (and from the skin of a few mammals)’. Similarly, in English, the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries define the term ‘wool’ as ‘the soft hair that covers the body of sheep and some other animals’ and, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that the term ‘Wolle’ designates ‘hair from sheep or other animals used in the manufacture of textiles’. 45 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not carry out such an examination of the usual meaning of the term ‘wool’, although it is apparent both from the documents produced by the applicant and from a number of dictionaries in various languages, on which the parties were given the opportunity to comment at the hearing, that that term may in fact cover not only hair from sheep but also hair from other mammals, such as goats, including the cashmere goat. Moreover, recital 10 of the contested decision, far from confirming the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s approach, refers to the possibility of labelling the hair of the cashmere goat, on textile products, as ‘cashmere wool’. 46 With regard to the context in which the term ‘wool’ is used, it should be noted that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, adopted inter alia on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 43(2) TFEU, is an instrument of the common agricultural policy. By contrast, the CN, established by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2658/87, is a tool for the classification of goods, put in place to meet the requirements of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the statistical requirements of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] external trade and the objectives of other Community policies relating to the importation or exportation of goods. It therefore pursues objectives distinct from those of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, which falls within the quality policy of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Consequently, if the EU legislature had intended to refer to the CN in the context of the quality system for agricultural and food products established by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, it would have done so expressly. 47 With regard to the objectives pursued by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, it is apparent in particular from a combined reading of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(2) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of that regulation, and from recitals 2, 3, 4, 15 and 18 thereof, that the rules for geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs is intended primarily to protect and to enhance the value of products linked to a specific geographical origin. 48 In the light of the objectives pursued by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, there is no justification, in relation to the registration of a PGI, in the absence of an express reference to the CN, for interpreting the concept of ‘wool’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to that regulation according to the animal from which it is derived on the basis of the CN, in the present case by distinguishing between goat hair and sheep hair, in the absence of other circumstances justifying that distinction. 49 The introduction, by way of interpretation, of such a distinction on the basis of the CN and, consequently, the restriction of the material scope of the regulation risks contravening the objectives of protection and enhancement of value of agricultural products pursued by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. In the present case, the use of the CN gives rise to a reduction in the scope of that regulation by comparison with the usual meaning of the term ‘wool’. 50 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] finding cannot be called into question by the transitional provision on the classification of geographical indications in the new [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143. Admittedly, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 89 of that regulation, ‘the classification referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of geographical indications registered or applied for before 13 May 2024 shall be made in accordance with the table set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] III.’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] III, entitled ‘Table of correspondence concerning classification as referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 89’, provides that ‘Class 2.15. Wool’ now corresponds to CN 5101. 51 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 89 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 is not intended to define retroactively the meaning of the term ‘wool’ in the context of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. Neither the wording of that regulation nor its recitals indicate that the legislature intended to provide an interpretation of the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. The sole purpose of that provision is to ensure a smooth transition from the old to the new regime. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 establishes a new mechanism, by providing, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6, that products designated by geographical indications are to be classified ‘in accordance with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] at two, four, six or, where a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] so decides, eight-digit level’, for registration, statistical and record keeping purposes, in particular for customs authorities. 52 The table of correspondence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] III to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 is thus a mere tool intended to ensure the transition to the new system and to facilitate the keeping of records with the appropriate codes, without retroactively altering the material scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 53 Contrary to what the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims, the explicit introduction of the CN into [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 does not constitute the codification of a pre-existing administrative practice. Apart from the fact that that assertion is not supported by any evidence, it cannot be accepted on the ground that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 does not constitute a reiteration of previous provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. By way of illustration, although [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143 defines agricultural products on the basis of the CN, it nevertheless expressly refers, inter alia, not only to the CN code of wool, but also to the CN code for fine hair, which includes cashmere. Consequently, the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 cannot be determined by reference to that of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/1143, since those two regulations follow a different organisation in that regard. 54 It follows that, in the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] incorrectly used the CN to determine the scope of the concept of ‘wool’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 and thus exclude ‘cashmere’ from the material scope of that regulation. 55 Accordingly, the first plea in law, alleging that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in law in its interpretation of the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, must be upheld. 56 Consequently, the contested decision must be annulled, without there being any need to examine the other pleas in law relied on by the applicant. Costs 57 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 58 Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2024/1224 of 30 April 2024 rejecting an application for protection of a geographical indication in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1151/2012 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ‘Монгол Тогтвортой ноолуур/[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ (PGI); 2. Orders the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in open court in Luxembourg on 25 February 2026. V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] M. van der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.
Sentenza Corte di giustizia UE n. 1151/2026 — Fons Iuris — Fons Iuris