I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Applicant: Schniga Srl (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by G. Würtenberger, lawyer and R. Kunze, Solicitor)
Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SNC Elaris (Angers, France) and Brookfield New Zealand Ltd (Havelock North, New Zealand)
—Annul the Decision of the Board of Appeal of 21 November 2007 in cases A-003/2007 and A-004/2007; and
—order CPVO to pay the costs.
Applicant for Community plant variety rights: Konsortium Südtiroler Baumschuler, following the transfer of the variety at issue, Schniga Srl (Application No 1999/0033)
Community plant variety right sought for: Gala-Schnitzer
Decision of the CPVO: Community plant variety right granted (Decisions No EU 18759, OBJ 06-021 and OBJ 06-022)
Appeal before the Board of Appeal lodged by: SNC Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand Ltd
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the CPVO
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 59(3) of Council Regulation No 2100/94 (1) as the objections to the Community plant variety right do not comply with the said provision; the disputed decision is based on requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant beyond the legislative framework; the power and discretion of the President of CPVO have been wrongly assessed.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).