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
EN
(2015/C 190/21)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Applicant: Aurora Srl (Finale Emilia, Italy) (represented by: L. Buchman, lawyer)
Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SES-VanderHave NV/SA (Tienen, Belgium)
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, variety denomination M 02205
Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 26 November 2014 in Case A10/2013
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision;
—declare that CPVR No EU 15118 is null and void;
—order CPVO to pay the costs, including the cost of any intervening parties.
—Infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2100/94;
—Misinterpretation of Article 87(4) of Regulation No 2100/94;
—Infringement of the principle of legal certainty insofar as the conditions of the granted CPVR were retrospectively changed;
—Infringement, to a certain extent, of the principle of legitimate expectation;
—Infringement of the principle of transparency and of the right of public access to documents insofar as the Examination process was not carried out in a transparent manner as the Applicant did not have access to fundamental documents.