- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-186/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — José Cánovas Pardo SL v Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Article 96 — Calculation of the period of prescription for claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 — Point from which time starts to run — Date of grant of Community rights and of knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable — Date on which the course of action in question ceased — Repeated acts — Continuous acts — Restricted to acts carried out more than three years ago)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0186
62018CA0186
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
13.12.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 502/2
(Case C-186/18) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Article 96 - Calculation of the period of prescription for claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 - Point from which time starts to run - Date of grant of Community rights and of knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable - Date on which the course of action in question ceased - Repeated acts - Continuous acts - Restricted to acts carried out more than three years ago)
(2021/C 502/02)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: José Cánovas Pardo SL
Defendant: Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 96 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights must be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the ongoing nature of an act of infringement of a protected variety or of the date on which that act ended, the three-year period of prescription set out in that provision in respect of claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of that regulation starts to run from the date on which, first, the Community plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the holder of the right had knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable;
2.Article 96 of Regulation No 2100/94 must be interpreted as meaning that claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of that regulation in respect of a set of acts of infringement of a protected variety brought after more than three years have elapsed are time barred only from when, first, the Community plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the right holder had knowledge of each individual act forming part of that set of acts and of the identity of the party liable for them.
(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.