PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS - LITIGATION
General Court can review legality decisions CPVO by examining whether characterisation of facts was flawed.
"39. The Court has repeatedly held, as regards Article 63 of Regulation No 40/94, which was framed in terms identical to those of Article 73 of Regulation No 2100/94, that the General Court is called upon to assess the legality of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal of OHIM by reviewing the way in which they have applied European Union law, specifically in the light of the factual evidence placed before those Boards. Accordingly, within the limits laid down in Article 63 of Regulation No 40/94, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, the General Court may carry out a full review of the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal of OHIM, if necessary examining whether the Board of Appeal concerned made a correct legal characterisation of the facts of the dispute or whether its appraisal of the facts placed before it was flawed (see, to that effect, Case C‑16/06 P Les Éditions Albert René v OHIM [2008] ECR I‑10053, paragraphs 38 and 39). In that regard, the Court of Justice has acknowledged that the General Court has a similar jurisdiction as regards the review of the legality of decisions of the CPVO or of its Boards of Appeal."
CPVO has discretion to make separate request for plant material to be examined and for documentary evidence relating to it
"53. Accordingly, as the General Court pointed out in paragraph 69 of the judgment under appeal, without being contradicted on that point by Brookfield and Elaris, the letter of 25 March 1999 related to the quality of the plant material to be examined and, under Article 55(4) of Regulation No 2100/94, a request in an individual case may relate, precisely, to quality."
CPVO has discretion to make new request plant material after imprecise initial request; principles of sound administration and effectiveness of proceedings
"55. In the light of the principle of sound administration and the need to ensure the proper conduct and effectiveness of proceedings, and inasmuch as the CPVO found – as emerges from paragraph 74 of the judgment under appeal and is not disputed, moreover, by Brookfield and Elaris – that its initial request lacked precision, it was for the CPVO to ask KSB to send it plant material which met the requirements set in a new request in an individual case."
IPPT20121219, CJEU, Elaris and Brookfield v Schniga
C‑534/10 P - ECLI:EU:C:2012:813
