Codorníu SA v Council
A private applicant can be individually concerned by a regulation if it affects him in a way that differentiates him from all others, for example by taking away a trade mark right.
Facts
An EU regulation provided that the term crémant could only be used for sparkling wines from France and Luxembourg. Codorníu, a Spanish producer of sparkling wine, had registered the trade mark Gran Cremant de Codorníu in Spain in 1924, and had used it for many years. It sought the annulment of the regulation, which would prevent it from using its trade mark.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the action was admissible. Although the regulation was of general application, that did not prevent it from being of individual concern to some of the persons affected. Codorníu had registered and used the trade mark for a long time before the regulation, and the regulation prevented it from using it, so it was differentiated from all other traders. The Court went on to annul the provision of the regulation, because the restriction was discriminatory and not objectively justified.
Related cases on Judicial review and actions against EU institutions
- Aktien-Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council Case 5/71, [1971] ECR 975
- Commission v France (Fishery products) Case C-304/02, [2005] ECR I-6263
- Commission v Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA Case C-263/02 P, [2004] ECR I-3425
- Germany v European Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising) Case C-376/98, [2000] ECR I-8419
- Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v European Parliament and Council Case C-583/11 P, EU:C:2013:625
- Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA v Commission Case C-352/98 P, [2000] ECR I-5291
- Meroni & Co, Industrie Metallurgiche SAS v High Authority Case 9/56, [1957 and 1958] ECR 133
- Microban International Ltd v Commission Case T-262/10, [2011] ECR II-7697
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
