CJEU case C‑159/20 Commission v Denmark – CJEU Judgment (European Union, 2022)
CJEU judgment — not a DPA enforcement action
This is a Court of Justice ruling, not an enforcement action by a data protection authority. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Denmark broke EU rules by letting companies export cheese labeled as 'Feta' to non-EU countries. This matters because it shows that EU product naming rules apply even to exports outside the EU, protecting traditional product names like 'Feta'.
What happened
Denmark allowed companies to export cheese labeled as 'Feta' to countries outside the EU, which the court found violated EU rules.
Who was affected
Companies in Denmark exporting cheese labeled as 'Feta' to non-EU countries were affected.
What the authority found
The Court of Justice ruled that Denmark violated EU rules by allowing the use of the name 'Feta' for cheese exports, breaching the principle of sincere cooperation.
Why this matters
This ruling clarifies that EU regulations on product names apply to exports beyond EU borders, ensuring protection for traditional EU product names. Businesses should be cautious about labeling practices even when exporting outside the EU.
Undertakings with registered offices in Denmark were exporting cheese to third countries under the Designation “Feta”, “Danish Feta” and “Danish Feta cheese”, even if these products do not comply with the product specification for the PDO “Feta”. After a complaint by Greek authorities, Danish authorities replied that it was not contrary to EU law, as Reg.1151/2012 only applies to products sold within EU territory and not outside the EU. Thus, Danish authorities claimed to be allowed to use the name ‘Feta’ to designate Danish cheese exported to third countries where that name is not protected. The question that the CJEU needed to answer was whether the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012 and has infringed the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU. 1. Violation of Article 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012 The CJEU held that when interpreting [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012R1151 Article 13(3) Reg.1151/2012], one must consider its wording and also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part ([https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=252150&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=24294986 C-569/20 Spetsializirana prokuratura]). Concerning the wording of [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012R1151 Article 13(3) Reg.1151/2012], the term “any use” includes the use of a registered name to designate products not covered by the registration which are produced in the EU and intended for export to third countries is not excluded from that prohibition. Concerning the context where this provision was adopted, two elements seem to be decisive. First, the fact that the regulation was adopted based on [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E118:EN:HTML Article 118(1) TFEU], which empowers the European Parliament and th
Outcome
CJEU Judgment
A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for CJEU case C‑159/20 Commission v Denmark in EU
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. CJEU case C‑159/20 Commission v Denmark - European Union (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: