# C_2011145EN.01000701.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2011 — Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main e.G. v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

(Case C-56/11)

2011/C 145/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main e.G.

Applicant:

Defendant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information laid down in the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 (1) and Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1768/95 (2) become established only if the request for information from the holder of the variety right is received by the supplier of processing services before the expiry of the marketing year (or the most recent marketing year where there are several) concerned by the request? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information laid down in the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 (1) and Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1768/95 (2) become established only if the request for information from the holder of the variety right is received by the supplier of processing services before the expiry of the marketing year (or the most recent marketing year where there are several) concerned by the request?

1

2

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Is there a request for information ‘complying with the time-limit’ where the holder claims in his request that he has some indication that the supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process for planting harvested material of the protected variety which the farmer named in the request has obtained by planting from propagating material of the protected variety, or must the supplier of the processing services also be furnished with evidence of the claimed indication in the request for information (for example, by providing a copy of the farmer’s statements of planting the product of the harvest)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is there a request for information ‘complying with the time-limit’ where the holder claims in his request that he has some indication that the supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process for planting harvested material of the protected variety which the farmer named in the request has obtained by planting from propagating material of the protected variety, or must the supplier of the processing services also be furnished with evidence of the claimed indication in the request for information (for example, by providing a copy of the farmer’s statements of planting the product of the harvest)?

| 3. | Can indications establishing the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information be derived from the fact that the supplier of processing services, as the agent of the holder of the plant variety right, performs a propagation contract for the production of consumption-related seed of the protected variety, which the holder of the plant variety right has concluded with the farmer effecting propagation, where and because the farmer is in fact granted the possibility, in performing the propagation contract, of using some of the propagation seed for planting? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can indications establishing the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information be derived from the fact that the supplier of processing services, as the agent of the holder of the plant variety right, performs a propagation contract for the production of consumption-related seed of the protected variety, which the holder of the plant variety right has concluded with the farmer effecting propagation, where and because the farmer is in fact granted the possibility, in performing the propagation contract, of using some of the propagation seed for planting?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1)

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14 (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14)

2

---