- 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-625/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2015 by Schniga GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14: Schniga GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0625
62015CN0625
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 27/27
—
(Case C-625/15 P)
(2016/C 027/31)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Schniga GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte)
Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office, Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—annul the judgement of the General Court of 10 September 2015 in joined cases T-91/14 and T-92/14;
—order the CPVO and the Interveners to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The General Court committed a legal error in the application of Article 7 of Regulation No. 2100/94 (1) on Community Plant Variety Rights (hereinafter: CPVR) as well as of Articles 22 and 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1239/95 (2) of 31 May 1995.
The General Court wrongly assessed the competence of the President of the Community Plant Variety Office in the inclusion of additional characteristics in the examination process of a variety to be granted Community plant variety protection.
The General Court wrongly assessed the legal nature of technical protocols and guidelines to be applied in the technical examination of an applied for Community plant variety right, resulting in a wrong assessment of the time frame in which the President of the Community Plant Variety Office may decide that a new characteristic for determination of distinctness of the new variety may be taken into account.
The General Court erred in assessing the consequence of the application of the principles of legal certainty, the objectivity of the Community Plant Variety Office and equal treatment in relation to the decisions of the President of the Community Plant Variety Office in the examination of a new variety.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights
OJ L 227, p. 1.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office
OJ L 121, p. 37.
—