News

The first article addresses adoption of the European Parliament of the European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 November 2019 on the draft Council decision on conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and Ukraine amending the trade preferences for poultry meat and poultry meat preparations provided for by the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part. The agreement amending the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (EUUAA) concerns two tariff lines for poultry, relating to: 1) fresh or chilled; and 2) frozen ‘other cuts’ of poultry breast, respectively. The article first provides a background on the agreement. Then the article analyses the amendment to the agreement and the fact that large quantities of special chicken breast cuts from Ukraine were entering the EU at a 0% tariff rate and, following a minor modification, were sold in the EU market as a chicken breasts, which are subject to a limited tariff rate quota (TRQ) in order to legitimately protect EU industry. The article concludes that the recent issue of Ukraine’s poultry producers’ creative application of the disciplines under the EUAA show the relevance of diligent assessments of tariff lines and TRQs negotiated under trade agreements, as even slight differences, intended or unintended, may have significant implications for trade.

The second article reviews the publication of the PHYCOMORPH network’s European Guidelines for a Sustainable Aquaculture of Seaweeds (hereinafter, PEGASUS) report on 9 May 2019 and looks at recent developments in the sector, involving major players in the food industry. The PEGASUS report makes a number of recommendations, including the adoption of a risk assessment approach to the cultivation of non-native species, improving standardisation and traceability frameworks, and adapting food security monitoring programmes for seaweeds. The article also notes that under harmonised EU legislation, certain seaweed species are considered to be novel foods and need to be authorised under Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on novel foods, while other seaweed species were consumed as food (or food supplements) to a significant degree within the EU before 15 May 1997 and therefore do not require pre-market authorisation/ The article concludes that in October 2019, the Commission stated that European industries involved in the development of sustainable seaweed aquaculture needed to be supported.

The third article addresses the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter, CJEU) delivered on 4 December 2019 in the Case C 432/18 Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena (hereinafter, Consorzio) v Balema GmbH, responding to a request for a preliminary ruling from the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH). In essence, the CJEU held that Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)] must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ does not extend to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of that name. The article concludes that in light of the controversies over protected geographical indications (hereinafter, PGIs), this case provides additional clarity for producers.