EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-278/19: Action brought on 26 April 2019 — Aurora v CPVO — SESVanderhave (M 02205)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0278

62019TN0278

April 26, 2019
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

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

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/71

(Case T-278/19)

(2019/C 213/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Srl (Padova, Italy) (represented by: L.-B. Buchman, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SESVanderhave NV (Tienen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 15118, sugar beet variety M 02205

Procedure before CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 27 February 2019 in Case R A010/2013-RENV

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that the contested decision misapplied the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 in case T-140/15;

alter the contested decision, reverse CPVO Decision NN010 of 23 September 2013 and validate the challenge to the validity of CPVR No. EU 15118 raised by the applicant on 28 August 2012;

and as a consequence:

declare that CPVR No. EU 15118 is ab initio null and void;

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law

Violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations;

Dereliction of duty and denial of justice.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia