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-140/15: Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Aurora v CPVO — SES-VanderHave (M 02205)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0140

62015TN0140

March 24, 2015
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

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/17

(Case T-140/15)

(2015/C 190/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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)

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, variety denomination M 02205

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 26 November 2014 in Case A10/2013

Form of order sought

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.

Pleas in law

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.

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