# C_2023164EN.01004901.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/49

---

Action brought on 17 March 2023 — Eurosemillas v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection and Carpa Dorada (Nadorcott)

(Case T-145/23)

(2023/C 164/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Eurosemillas, SA (Cordoba, Spain) (represented by: J. Muñoz-Delgado y Mérida and M. Esteve Sanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nador Cott Protection SARL (Saint-Raphaël, France), Carpa Dorada, SL (Almazora, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Nador Cott Protection SARL, other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community plant variety right No EU 14111 — Variety denomination: Nadorcott — Species: Citrus reticulata Blanco

Proceedings before CPVO: Nullity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 2 January 2023 in Case A002/2020

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the first plea of the action, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of CPVO to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment. |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the first plea of the action, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of CPVO to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.

| — | in the alternative, if the Court does not uphold the first plea of the action, or if it upholds the first plea but considers itself to be in a position to determine, on the basis of the matters of fact and law raised in the proceedings, the decision which the Board of Appeal was required to take, uphold the action brought by Eurosemillas SA on the basis of any of its second to sixth pleas, annul the contested decision and, in its place, issue a new decision annulling Decision No NN20 of CPVO of 16 December 2019 and declare Community plant variety right No EU 14111 on the mandarin variety ‘Nadorcott’ null and void. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the Court does not uphold the first plea of the action, or if it upholds the first plea but considers itself to be in a position to determine, on the basis of the matters of fact and law raised in the proceedings, the decision which the Board of Appeal was required to take, uphold the action brought by Eurosemillas SA on the basis of any of its second to sixth pleas, annul the contested decision and, in its place, issue a new decision annulling Decision No NN20 of CPVO of 16 December 2019 and declare Community plant variety right No EU 14111 on the mandarin variety ‘Nadorcott’ null and void.

| — | order the defendants to pay the costs of the present action and to pay the costs of the proceedings before CPVO and its Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the costs of the present action and to pay the costs of the proceedings before CPVO and its Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Breach of the fundamental right to good administration, in conjunction with the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in due process of law enshrined in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which the contested decision also infringed. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the fundamental right to good administration, in conjunction with the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in due process of law enshrined in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which the contested decision also infringed.

| — | Infringement, by non-application, of Article 20(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994 in conjunction with Article 10 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement, by non-application, of Article 20(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994 in conjunction with Article 10 thereof.

| — | Infringement, by improper application, of Article 116 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement, by improper application, of Article 116 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994.

| — | Infringement, by non-application, of Article 20(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994, in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, in that the contested decision rejects that the disposal of Nadorcott’s constituents and harvested material in the EU before the grace period (calculated without applying Article 116) destroyed the novelty of the variety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement, by non-application, of Article 20(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994, in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, in that the contested decision rejects that the disposal of Nadorcott’s constituents and harvested material in the EU before the grace period (calculated without applying Article 116) destroyed the novelty of the variety.

| — | Infringement, by non-application, of Article 20(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994 in conjunction with Article 11(1) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement, by non-application, of Article 20(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994 in conjunction with Article 11(1) thereof.

| — | Infringement, by non-application, of Article 20(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994 in conjunction with Article 11(4) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement, by non-application, of Article 20(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994 in conjunction with Article 11(4) thereof.

---