Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic - Essay Example

Titus Rock Manickam Order No. 301165 18 May 2009 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES v. ITALIAN REPUBLIC The Facts The Italian Republic had failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty that prohibits chocolate products containing vegetable fats other than cocoa butter from being marketed in Italy under the name used in the Member State of origin when such products are to be marketed under the name chocolate substitute.The Lower Court's DecisionEarlier, on 12 February 1997, the European Commission informed the Italian government that "it considered incompatible with Article 30 of the EC Treaty the prohibition on marketing cocoa and chocolate products containing vegetable fats other than cocoa butter under the name chocolate".

However, the Italian government responded by their letter of 08 July 1997 and denied that it was necessary to amend their national legislation and free movement in all Member States was guaranteed only for the products which complied with Article 30.The European Commission disagreed with the response of the Italian government and sent the Italy a formal notice on 22 December 1997asking it to comply with its obligation under Article 30 of the EC Treaty within two months. However, the Italian government stood its ground and refused to oblige.

The Legal Issue on Appeal The legal issue is that chocolate products containing vegetable fats other than cocoa butter up to a maximum of 5% of the total weight of the product is manufactured as chocolate in Member States such as Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom, and it is accepted under this name in all the Member States except Spain and Italy.The Commission also takes the view that the obligation under the Italian legislation to market cocoa and chocolate products containing vegetable fats other than cocoa butter under the name chocolate substitute significantly obstructs their access to the Italian market.

The Holding on Appeal - Is the court's answer to the issue on appeal based on a principle of law. This part of the brief is usually a sentence longThe court's answer to the issue is based on the principle of law. The Commission considers that it is not possible to claim that the addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter to a chocolate product which contains the minimum contents required substantially changed the nature of the product to the point where use of the name chocolate would create confusion as regards its basic characteristics.

The Italian government states that it considers the Directive 73/241 provides for full harmonization as regards the composition of products which can be marketed under the name chocolate.The Legal Rationale for the Holding - Describe in more detail why the court decided the issue in favor of one party rather than the otherThe rationale is to avoid confusion in the minds of the consumer who will be left wondering about the difference between the term "chocolate" and "chocolate substitute" if the ingredients used for both are different.

The whole case come down to the use of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter and such product must be termed "chocolate substitute".The Italian government does not feel the need to bring about change in legislation to enforce printing of such difference on the products packaging.Sources:Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 16 January 2003, http://oami.europa.eu/en/mark/aspects/pdf/JJ0000014.pdf