Corte di giustizia UE n. 1151/2026

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 15 April 2026 ( * ) ( Agriculture – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] geographical indications – Registration of the name ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ – Opposition procedure – New scrutiny by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] following substantial amendments of the details published for the purposes of opposition – Right to be heard – Principle of good administration – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1151/2012 – Plea of illegality ) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑62/24, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Drumdigus ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), represented by B. Burns, Solicitor, M. McNamara, Barrister-at-Law, and C. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by M. Konstantinidis, A. Dawes and F. Thiran, acting as Agents, defendant, supported by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by M. Browne and S. Finnegan, acting as Agents, and by J. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by A. Droin, E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and L. Stefani, acting as Agents, and by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by L. Hamtcheva and P. Pecheux, acting as Agents, interveners, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed, at the time of the deliberations, of A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], J. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and L. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. Marghelis, Administrator, having regard to the written part of the procedure, further to the hearing on 10 July 2025, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its action under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, the applicant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], seeks the annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2023/2666 of 22 November 2023 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ (PGI)) (OJ L, 2023/2666; ‘the contested implementing regulation’). I. Background to the dispute 2 The applicant is an organisation representing the interests of its members, beef farmers in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 3 On 14 August 2020, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]), an agency of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Agriculture, initiated, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49 of [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 the version in force at that time, a national opposition procedure in respect of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (PGI) application for ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ (‘the initial application for registration’). 4 On 29 August 2020, the applicant submitted, in the context of the national opposition procedure in question, an opposition to the initial application for registration; that opposition was rejected on 20 November 2020 by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Agriculture. 5 On 26 November 2020, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for Agriculture announced the publication on his [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s website of the final version of the initial application for registration, including a product specification (‘the initial product specification’). He also invited any natural or legal person, having a legitimate interest and resident or having its registered office in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to appeal the decision on that application by submitting their appeal grounds by 8 December 2020. Lastly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated that he would continue to engage with his counterpart and stakeholders in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pursue the registration of a joint PGI. 6 On 27 November 2020, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for Agriculture communicated the initial application for registration to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 7 On 8 December 2021, the initial application for registration was published in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2021 C 492, p. 12). 8 On 21 February 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submitted to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] a reasoned opposition to the initial application for registration. In that opposition, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claimed, in particular, that the product covered by the application was produced in both [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that the term ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ was historically used to designate products produced in both territories. That opposition was declared admissible. 9 On 8 March 2022, the applicant submitted to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] an opposition to the initial application for registration. That opposition was declared inadmissible on the basis of the second subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, on the ground that the applicant was established in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] from which the application was submitted. 10 On 13 April 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] invited [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to engage in the consultations provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(3) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 11 Following those consultations, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] reached an agreement providing for several amendments to the initial product specification. In particular, the protected territory was extended to cover [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 12 The agreement in question was communicated to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] by letters of 11 July and 3 August 2022 (‘the agreement between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’). 13 Being of the view that the amendments to the initial product specification were substantial within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] again examined the application for registration, as amended (‘the amended application for registration’). In the course of that new examination, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considered that the extension of the geographical area provided for in the product specification as amended (‘the amended product specification’) was justified, since the quality, reputation and characteristics of grass fed beef in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] were similar. Consequently, according to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the amended application for registration satisfied the conditions laid down in Articles 5 and 6 of that regulation. 14 On 4 August 2023, the amended application for registration was published in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2023 C 275, p. 26). 15 On 22 November 2023, as no statement of opposition had been submitted following the publication referred to in paragraph 14 above, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted the contested implementing regulation. II. Forms of order sought 16 In the final version of its form of order sought, the applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        annul the contested implementing regulation; –        order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. 17 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the action; –        order the applicant to pay the costs. 18 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the action. 19 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the action; –        order the applicant to pay the costs. 20 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the action in so far as it is based on a plea of the unlawfulness of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012; –        order the applicant to pay the costs. III. Law 21 The applicant relies on five pleas in law. The first plea alleges breach of the right to be heard, contrary to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41(2)(a) of the Charter of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6 of the Convention for the Protection of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (the ECHR). 22 The second plea alleges infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 664/2014 of 18 December 2013 supplementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 with regard to the establishment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules (OJ 2014 L 179, p. 17). 23 By the third plea, the applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] breached the principle of good administration in considering that the amended application for registration did not constitute a new application. 24 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the fourth plea, the applicant pleads, in the alternative, the illegality of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 25 In support of the fifth plea, the applicant claims that, inasmuch as the amended application for registration extends the PGI at issue to meat from cattle raised in part in feedlots, that application adversely affects the applicant and its members, and affects the applicant directly. 26 When questioned at the hearing about the scope of its fifth plea, the applicant confirmed the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s interpretation of the fifth plea to the effect that, apart from the arguments developed in paragraphs 72 to 75 of the application, it relates to the admissibility of the action, in that it aims, in essence, to establish that the applicant and its members have standing to bring an action against the contested implementing regulation. 27 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers it appropriate to examine the arguments set out in paragraphs 72 to 75 of the application, the only arguments developed in support of the fifth plea that go to the merits of the action, in the context of the analysis of the third plea. A. Preliminary observations 28 While the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not expressly claim that the action is, as such, inadmissible on the ground that the content of the application does not satisfy the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it maintains, in essence, that all of the pleas are based on a premiss that is insufficiently precise to permit an assessment of its merits. In its view, the applicant, without putting forward the slightest argument of fact or of law capable of supporting it, proceeds from the premiss that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ought to have regarded the amended application for registration as a new ‘joint application’ within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49 ‘(4) and (5)’ of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 and not as a substantial amendment of an existing application within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of that regulation. 29 In that regard, and irrespective of the relevance of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s proposed interpretation of the pleas as being based on the same, insufficiently precise premiss, it is sufficient, in any event, to point out that the application, in itself, contains the subject matter of the proceedings, the pleas in law and arguments relied on and a summary of those pleas in law, from which it is readily apparent that the applicant disputes the lawfulness of both the contested implementing regulation and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, which that implementing regulation applies. In that regard, the applicant maintains, in essence, that it ought to have been heard regarding the amendments made to the initial application for registration following the agreement between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 30 In addition, the essential elements of fact and of law on which the pleas put forward in the action, as set out in paragraphs 21 to 24 above, are based are indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and are sufficiently clear and precise to permit the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to prepare its defence, as indeed it has been able to do, and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to adjudicate on the action. B. The merits of the action 1. The first plea in law , alleging breach of the right to be heard 31 The applicant claims that there has been an infringement of the right to be heard within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41 of the Charter of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], also protected by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6 ECHR. The right to be heard guarantees every person the opportunity to make known his or her views effectively during an administrative procedure and before the adoption of any decision liable to affect his or her interests adversely. That right must be observed even where the applicable legislation does not provide for such a formality. 32 The applicant maintains that, in the present case, it was deprived of any opportunity to be heard and to make known its views on the amended application for registration. 33 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dispute the applicant’s arguments. 34 As a preliminary point, the complaint alleging infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6 ECHR must be rejected at the outset as ineffective, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not a ‘tribunal’ within the meaning of that provision (see judgments of 27 June 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑439/07, EU:T:2012:320, paragraph 171 and the case-law cited, and of 27 March 2014, Saint-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑56/09 and T‑73/09, EU:T:2014:160, paragraph 77 and the case-law cited). 35 It should, in the first place, be borne in mind that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41(2)(a) of the Charter of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that the right to good administration includes ‘the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken’. 36 The right to be heard guarantees every person the opportunity to make known his or her views effectively during an administrative procedure and before the adoption by an institution or body of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of any decision liable to affect his or her interests adversely. In accordance with the case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, observance of the right to be heard is required, as the applicant observes, even where the applicable legislation does not expressly provide for such a procedural requirement (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 November 2012, M. , C‑277/11, EU:C:2012:744, paragraphs 85 and 86 and the case-law cited, and of 18 June 2020, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v RQ , C‑831/18 P, EU:C:2020:481, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited). 37 The right of every person to be heard is not intended to apply, however, where a person considers himself or herself to be affected by an act of general application (judgment of 22 June 2023, Arysta LifeScience [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑259/22 P, not published, EU:C:2023:513, paragraph 50). 38 Similarly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice has made clear that the right to good administration, as provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41(2) of the Charter of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], does not cover the process of enacting measures of general application (judgment of 17 March 2011, AJD Tuna , C‑221/09, EU:C:2011:153, paragraph 49). 39 As regards measures of general application, neither the process of the preparation of such acts nor those acts themselves require, under the general principles of EU law, such as the right to be heard, consulted or informed, the participation of those affected. The position is different if an express provision of the legal framework governing the adoption of that act confers such a procedural right on an affected person. Even though [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41(2)(a) of the Charter of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not require it to do so, it remains open to the EU legislature to provide for a right, for persons deemed to be affected by an act of general application, to be heard, consulted or informed and to regulate the exercise of that right (judgment of 22 June 2023, Arysta LifeScience [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑259/22 P, not published, EU:C:2023:513, paragraph 51). 40 In the present case, the contested implementing regulation is an act of general application, in that it recognises that all operators whose products meet the requirements of the amended product specification may market their products under the protected name. 41 Therefore, in the context of the adoption of the contested implementing regulation, the only procedural rights that the applicant has are those expressly provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. On that basis, the exercise of the right to be heard on an application for registration of a protected name is governed by Articles 49 and 51 of that regulation. 42 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, entitled ‘Application for registration of names’, provides, in that context, in paragraph 3 thereof, that ‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall initiate a national opposition procedure that ensures adequate publication of the application and that provides for a reasonable period within which any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and established or resident on its territory may lodge an opposition to the application’. 43 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, entitled ‘Opposition procedure’, provides, in that regard, in paragraph 1 thereof, as follows: ‘Within three months from the date of publication in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , the authorities of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] or of a third country, or a natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and established in a third country may lodge a notice of opposition with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest, established or resident in a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] other than that from which the application was submitted, may lodge a notice of opposition with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in which it is established within a time limit permitting an opposition to be lodged pursuant to the first subparagraph. … [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall forward the notice of opposition to the authority or body that lodged the application without delay.’ 44 It is apparent from a combined reading of Articles 49 and 51 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 that a natural or legal person, established or resident in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] from which the application to register a protected name was submitted, may lodge an opposition to such an application only at the level of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and is therefore unable to lodge a notice of opposition with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 45 As the applicant is established in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] from which the application for registration of the PGI at issue was submitted, it cannot validly claim that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] acted in breach of its right to be heard in respect of the amended application for registration when it adopted the contested implementing regulation. 46 In view of all of the foregoing, the first plea in law must be rejected. 2. The second plea in law , alleging infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6 64/2014 47 The applicant maintains that, as it was deprived of any opportunity to be heard concerning the amended application for registration, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted the contested implementing regulation in breach of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 664/2014. In its submission, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 provides that, in case of joint applications, the national opposition procedures must be implemented in all the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned. 48 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dispute the applicant’s arguments. 49 It should be noted that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 664/2014, entitled ‘National opposition procedures for joint applications’, provides as follows: ‘In case of joint applications as referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] … No 1151/2012, the related national opposition procedures shall be carried out in all the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned.’ 50 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 664/2014 thus concerns only the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and not the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and the organisation of national opposition procedures within the meaning of that provision is solely within the competence of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned. 51 Furthermore, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, ‘in the case of a “protected designations of origin” or “protected geographical indications” name that designates a trans-border geographical area …, several groups from different [OSCURATO:PERSONA] or third countries may lodge a joint application for registration’. 52 In that regard, it is sufficient to state that no joint application for registration, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, was lodged. The only application received by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in the context of the procedure that led to the adoption of the contested implementing regulation, was the initial application for registration lodged by [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. That implementing regulation was thus adopted outside the scope of that provision. 53 Although, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states in recital 5 of the contested implementing regulation, the initial application for registration, following the agreement between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], became a multi-country application in that it then covered the territory of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], such a circumstance cannot however, where no formal application was lodged, have transformed the initial application for registration into a ‘joint application for registration’ within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. 54 Consequently, since [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 664/2014 imposes obligations only on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot have adopted the contested implementing regulation in infringement of such a provision, which, moreover, was not applied in the present case. 55 In view of the foregoing, the second plea in law must be rejected. 3. The third plea in law , alleging breach of the principle of good administration 56 The applicant maintains, in essence, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] infringed the principle of good administration by not ensuring, in breach of the division of powers between the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned provided for by Articles 49 to 51 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in fact organised a new opposition procedure in relation to the amended application for registration. 57 In the applicant’s submission, because the geographical area designated by the PGI at issue, following the agreement between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], became a cross-border area and because the amended application for registration included a new group, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ought to have regarded that application as a new application, jointly submitted by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, in order fully to ensure the protection of the right to be heard. 58 The applicant maintains that the documents annexed to the defence do not support the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s contention that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] repeated its scrutiny of the amended application for registration. Nor was any national opposition procedure implemented with respect to the amended application for registration. 59 According to the applicant, by not ensuring that a new opposition procedure was in fact organised at national level, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] failed to have regard to the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, which, in the applicant’s words, does not permit the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to ‘accept an entirely new application where to do so would result[, as in the present case,] in a denial of the right to be heard’. 60 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also, according to the applicant, infringed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 17 TEU, which provides that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to ‘ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them’, since it did not ensure that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] complied with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 664/2014, which the applicant claims lays down the ‘obligation to carry out national opposition procedures in all [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned by the joint applications’. 61 The applicant maintains that, in the present case, it was even more necessary to allow it to exercise effectively its right to be heard at national level and to formulate objections to the amended application for registration because that application had been submitted by two groups neither of which fulfilled the conditions laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 or constituted a group as defined in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3 of that regulation. 62 The applicant infers that, in registering the name at issue without the applicant having had the opportunity to submit observations in the context of an opposition at national level to the amended application for registration, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] infringed the principle of good administration. 63 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dispute the applicant’s arguments. 64 In that regard, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observes that it was not required, in any event, to organise a new opposition procedure on the amended application for registration on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012. The amendments made to the initial application for registration constitute substantial amendments and as a result the national procedure ended and the amended application for registration was then solely a matter for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and was covered by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of that regulation. 65 In the present case, as it clarified at the hearing, the applicant takes issue with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for having deprived it, in essence, of its right to be heard by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] because it did not consider that the amended application for registration constituted a new application, jointly submitted by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and failed to ensure, before repeating the scrutiny referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, that a new national opposition procedure for the amended application for registration had in fact been implemented in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 66 Accordingly, it is appropriate to answer, in the first place, the question whether, in the present case, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was required, in the context of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, to implement a national opposition procedure for the amended application for registration and, in the second place, the question whether, if the answer to the first question is in the positive, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was required, in application of the principle of good administration, to ensure the effective implementation of such a procedure by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], before determining whether the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] fulfilled its obligations arising from that principle in the present case. (a) Whether there is an obligation on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to implement a national opposition procedure for the amended application for registration 67 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the guarantees conferred by EU law in administrative proceedings include, in particular, the principle of good administration, enshrined in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41 of the Charter of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], part of which is the duty of the competent institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case (judgments of 21 November 1991, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑269/90, EU:C:1991:438, paragraph 14, and of 23 September 2009, Estonia v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑263/07, EU:T:2009:351, paragraph 99). 68 It should also be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, when a provision of EU law is interpreted, account must be taken not only of its wording but also of its context and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it forms part. The origins of a provision of EU law may also provide information relevant to its interpretation (see judgment of 9 June 2022, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑55/21, EU:C:2022:459, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited). 69 It is therefore appropriate to carry out a literal, contextual and teleological interpretation of Articles 49 to 51 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, in particular [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of that regulation, on which the applicant relies. 70 In the first place, as regards the literal interpretation, it should be noted that Articles 49 to 51 do not expressly lay down an obligation on the applicant [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to implement a national opposition procedure after the initial application for registration has been the subject of a reasoned and admissible statement of opposition received at EU level. In particular, those articles do not lay down such an obligation where that application has been substantially amended following the appropriate consultations between the authority or person that lodged the opposition and the authority or body that lodged the application, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(3) of that regulation. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of that regulation merely states that, in such a case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to repeat the scrutiny provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50 of that regulation. 71 It should be noted, however, first, that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 refers to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49 of that regulation, providing that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to scrutinise any application that it receives pursuant to that article in order to check that the application is justified. 72 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 provides that every applicant [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is under an obligation to allow any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and established or resident on its territory to lodge an opposition to any application for registration of a name. 73 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], when the details published in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(2) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, namely, in essence, the details of the product specification covered by the application for registration of the name at issue, have been substantially amended following the appropriate consultations, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of that regulation provides, as is apparent from paragraph 70 above, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to repeat the scrutiny, referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50 of that regulation, of the application for registration. 74 Such scrutiny means that the application as thus amended must be published again, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(2) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, which allows any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest, established or resident in a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] other than that from which the application was submitted, to lodge an opposition to that amended application, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(1) of that regulation. 75 It thus follows from the wording of Articles 49 to 51 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, which provides for the procedure for the registration of a name, that the EU legislature provided for a right, for persons liable to be affected by such a procedure, to lodge an opposition, either at national level or at EU level. However, the wording of those articles does not expressly provide that a natural or legal person established or resident in the applicant [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has a right to lodge an opposition, at national level, to an application for registration which has been substantially amended. 76 In the second place, as regards the contextual and teleological interpretation, it should be stated that Articles 49 to 51 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 come under Title V, Chapter IV, entitled ‘Application and registration processes for … geographical indications …’, which also concerns procedures for the amendment of a product specification and the cancellation of a registration. 77 In that regard, it may be observed, first of all, that, in accordance with the first subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 53(2) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, where an application to amend a product specification, namely an application lodged after the name in question has been registered, involves one or more amendments that are not minor, which include amendment of the protected geographical area, as follows from point (d) of the third subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 53(2) of that regulation, ‘the amendment application shall follow the procedure laid down in Articles 49 to 52’ of that regulation. 78 Likewise, it must be emphasised that, alongside [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 54 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, relating to the procedure for the cancellation of a protected name, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 664/2014 provides that the procedure laid down in Articles 49 to 52 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 is to apply mutatis mutandis to the cancellation of a registration as referred to in the first and second subparagraphs of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 54(1) of that regulation. 79 Such provisions therefore imply that amendments to a product specification which are not minor, or the cancellation of a registration, may be the subject of an opposition both in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] from which the application for amendment or cancellation is submitted, for natural or legal persons having a legitimate interest and established or resident in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and at EU level, for natural or legal persons having a legitimate interest and established or resident in one of the other [OSCURATO:PERSONA], through that [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 80 In those circumstances, having regard to both the general scheme of Articles 49 to 51 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 and the legal context of which they form part, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of that regulation, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50 of that regulation, implicitly but necessarily means that, where the details of the product specification of the product at issue covered by the initial application for registration have been substantially amended, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to which the authority or body that lodged that application belongs is to initiate a new national opposition procedure. That new procedure must guarantee adequate publication of the application for registration as thus amended and provide for a reasonable period within which any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and established or resident on the territory of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may lodge an opposition to the application. 81 Questioned on that point at the hearing, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], a co-legislator of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, confirmed, in that respect, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s interpretation, as is apparent from the explanations which it provided at the hearing, that where the details of the product specification have been substantially amended, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned is to initiate a national opposition procedure for the application for registration as thus amended. 82 In the third place, such an interpretation is confirmed by the rules that existed prior to those contained in Articles 49 to 51 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, which should be taken into account in the context of the teleological and contextual interpretations of those provisions, under which the applicant [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was required to implement a new national opposition procedure when the details of the initial application were substantially amended following an opposition lodged before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 83 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 was adopted following the implementation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1). 84 The procedure governing an application for registration of a protected name was the subject of Articles 5 to 7 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2081/92 and provided, in particular, that any legitimately concerned natural or legal person might object, at national level, to the proposed registration and that any [OSCURATO:PERSONA] might object to the registration following its publication in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. If the objection was held to be admissible, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] then asked the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures. 85 However, if such an agreement was reached and that agreement resulted, in essence, in the amendment of the product specification of the product protection of which was sought, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7(5) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2081/92, was to ‘again initiate the procedure laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7’ of that regulation. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7 of that regulation expressly provided, in paragraph 2 thereof, that the competent authorities of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] were to ensure that all persons who could demonstrate a legitimate economic interest were authorised to consult the application and, in paragraph 3 thereof, that any legitimately concerned natural or legal person might object to the proposed registration at the level of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in which that person was resident or established, as noted in paragraph 84 above. 86 It is thus apparent from the registration procedure laid down by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2081/92, which preceded [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, that any person concerned by the application for registration and residing or established in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] from which the application was submitted benefited from a new national opposition procedure in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] after an opposition had resulted in the amendment of the initial application. 87 In the light of all of the foregoing, it must be concluded, regard being had to the literal, contextual and teleological analysis of Articles 49 to 51 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration, that legitimately interested natural or legal persons established or resident in the applicant [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should be able to object, to that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to an application to register a protected name after that application has been substantially amended. 88 It must therefore be concluded that, in the present case, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was required to organise a national opposition procedure for the amended application for registration. (b) The obligations on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to ensure the effective implementation by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of a new national opposition procedure for the amended application for registration 89 It must be noted that, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, the obligation on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to repeat the scrutiny referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50 of that regulation applies where the details published in accordance with paragraph 2 of that article have, following the appropriate consultations referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(3) of that regulation, been substantially amended. 90 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must therefore necessarily take account of the results of the appropriate consultations, following which the scrutiny which it must carry out takes place. 91 Such an interpretation is supported by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(3) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, which expressly provides that, where the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] receives an admissible statement of opposition, it is to take account of the ‘results’ of the appropriate consultations referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(3) of that regulation, before proceeding, if an agreement has been reached, to register the name in question. 92 As is apparent from paragraph 80 above, where, following an opposition, the details of the product specification of the product at issue covered by the initial application for registration have been substantially amended, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, the applicant [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to initiate a new national opposition procedure in respect of the application for registration as thus amended. 93 That interpretation is confirmed, moreover, by the evolution of the legal framework of which [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 forms part. 94 In that regard, as explained in paragraph 85 above, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2081/92, which preceded [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, provided, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7 thereof, that where the details of the initial application had been amended following an objection that was deemed admissible, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was to initiate the opposition procedure again both for the benefit of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and for that of any legitimately concerned natural or legal person, who could then object by sending a statement to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on whose territory the person in question was resident or established. In the absence of any objection, or where the details of the initial application were not amended, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was to register the name. Such a procedure therefore necessarily meant that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] would verify whether there was any opposition, since that determined whether it was possible to proceed directly to the registration concerned. 95 In addition, it may be observed that, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(1) 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), on which the applicant relies, when the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] examines applications for registration, it is to check that such applications contain the required information, ‘taking into account the outcome of the scrutiny and opposition procedure carried out by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned’. 96 In those circumstances, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must take into account and examine carefully and impartially, in compliance with the principle of good administration, all the relevant details of the particular case, including the fact that a national opposition procedure was conducted, which constitutes a precondition of the scrutiny provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 where the details of the initial application are substantially amended. 97 It must be concluded from all of the foregoing that, in the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was required, in application of the principle of good administration, to ensure, before carrying out again, on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(4) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, the scrutiny provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(1) of that regulation in respect of the amended application for registration, that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had in fact initiated a national opposition procedure for that application. (c) Compliance by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] with its obligations arising under the principle of good administration in the present case 98 As a preliminary point, it must be borne in mind, in addition, that the duty of sincere cooperation with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4(3) TEU, means that every [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is under a duty to facilitate the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s accomplishment of its task consisting, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 17 TEU, as the applicant observes, in ensuring, as guardian of the Treaties, the application of EU law under the control of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice (judgment of 6 March 2025, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Luxembourg (Whistleblowers directives) , C‑150/23, EU:C:2025:146, paragraph 63). The duty of sincere cooperation implies, in particular, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned must in good faith provide the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] with all relevant information requested by it (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 19 September 2024, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Taxation of profits of CFCs) , C‑555/22 P, C‑556/22 P and C‑564/22 P, EU:C:2024:763, paragraph 99). 99 In the present case, it is apparent from the case file that, in an email of 7 July 2022 to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Agriculture, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in answer to [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s inquiry about procedural steps to be taken in the case [OSCURATO:PERSONA] reached an agreement with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], ‘strongly’ recommended that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ‘republish the [amended] product specification’ as this ‘would allow … sufficient time for potential oppositions in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], considering the substantial changes to the product specification that seem[ed] to be envisaged as a result of the ongoing consultations (extending the demarcated area to cover the territory in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (NI), among others).’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated in that email that that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ‘might consider it useful to request an extension of the consultations by three months to allow more time for implementation of the necessary steps at national level’. 100 In answer to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s email of 7 July 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Agriculture replied, by email of 8 July 2022, that it ‘intend[ed] to publish the revised documents again once agreement [between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was] reached and, as ha[d] always been the case, it [was] open to any stakeholder to submit views’. 101 By email of 12 December 2022, that is to say, after the agreement between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was forwarded to it, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], after informing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Agriculture that it was aware that that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had published the product specification relating to the amended application for registration, requested it to ‘confirm if any oppositions [had] followed’ that publication. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] confirmed by email of 14 December 2022 that it had ‘not received any oppositions regarding the PGI application’. 102 It is apparent from those email exchanges that the amended product specification had been made available on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Agriculture’s website and that that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which was responsible for examining the application for registration, had expressly confirmed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that it had not received any oppositions. 103 In those circumstances, there was nothing in the file that was liable to cause the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to have serious doubts as to [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s initiation of a new national opposition procedure for the amended application for registration. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], therefore, on the basis of the information available to it and without infringing the principle of good administration was, contrary to the applicant’s submission at the hearing, under no obligation to ask the competent [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities to provide additional proof that that procedure had actually been implemented. 104 In that regard, the fact, invoked by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that ‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities were always completely satisfied that it was not necessary to [organise a] consultation procedure at national level [on the amended application for registration]’ and that, in fact, such a procedure was not actually implemented, thus has no effect on the legality of the action taken by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s review of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s obligations under the principle of good administration. 105 It must therefore be concluded from all of the foregoing that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in the present case, ensured that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in fact initiated a national opposition procedure for the amended application for registration. 106 Consequently, and irrespective of the answer to the question whether the amended application for registration might be classified as a ‘joint application’ within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49(1) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012, the applicant cannot in any event take issue with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for not having ensured, in application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 17 TEU, that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] complied with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 664/2014 which provides, as was noted in paragraph 49 above, that ‘in case of joint applications … the related national opposition procedures shall be carried out in all the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned’. 107 It should be made clear, in that regard, that it follows from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 49 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 that the national opposition procedure is to be conducted at the initiative of and under the control of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned, which must also ensure that persons having a legitimate interest have an opportunity to appeal. It does not follow either from Articles 49 to 51 of that regulation, or from any other provision of that regulation, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which intervenes only at a later stage of the procedure once the application for registration has been forwarded to it, is responsible for reviewing the lawfulness of the national opposition procedure. It would, moreover, be contrary to the system of division of powers established by that regulation, under which the authorities of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned have autonomous decision-making power during the national phase of the registration procedure, for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to exercise such a power of review (judgment of 21 February 2024, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑361/21, not published, EU:T:2024:99, paragraph 66). 108 In the present case, while it is apparent from the case file that on 3 August 2022 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Agriculture published a notice on its website advising that the amended application for registration had been sent to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was under no obligation to check, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 107 above, that the procedure implemented at national level had been implemented lawfully. 109 In those circumstances, the applicant cannot successfully rely on the irregularity of the national opposition procedure, on the ground, as is apparent from its line of argument set out in paragraph 61 above, that the application was not submitted by the competent authorities, to call into question the legality of the contested implementing regulation. 110 In the light of all of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not infringe the principle of good administration when it repeated the scrutiny provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 in respect of the amended application for registration. 111 The third plea in law must be rejected. 4. The fourth plea in law , alleging the illegality of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 151/2012 112 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that in the application the applicant formally requested the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to ‘order that … [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 [is] invalid in so far as [it] failed to allow effective participation by the applicant in the registration of the PGI’. 113 Questioned about the meaning and the scope of that request, the applicant stated at the hearing that that head of claim should be interpreted as forming part of the fourth plea, in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 does not permit the applicant to be heard. 114 The applicant maintains, in that regard, in essence, that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 does not permit, as in the circumstances of the present case, an interested person to be heard and to participate effectively in the procedure for the registration of a PGI, with the result that that regulation should be declared unlawful. 115 In the reply, the applicant submits that such a breach of its right to be heard constitutes a beach of the principle of legality, enshrined in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 TEU. 116 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dispute the applicant’s arguments. 117 As the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concluded in the analysis of the third plea in law put forward in the present action, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1151/2012 must be interpreted as permitting any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and established or resident, as the applicant is, in the applicant [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to lodge an opposition to any application for registration of a name, either when the application for registration is lodged, or during the procedure, following an opposition submitted by another [OSCURATO:PERSONA], where the details of the product specification of the product covered by that application have been substantially amended. 118 In those circumstances, the premiss on which the applicant relies in support of the present plea is incorrect. The fourth plea must therefore be rejected. 119 In the light of all of the foregoing, since all the pleas have been rejected, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, without there being any need to rule on its admissibility. Costs 120 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. As the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 121 Furthermore, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. It follows that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must bear their own costs. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; 3. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to bear their own costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in open court in Luxembourg on 15 April 2026. V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.