Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:196
Date: 2010-04-15
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Plant varieties
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 2. Agriculture – Uniform legislation – Community plant variety rights – Conditions for the grant of rights (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Arts 7(1) and 73(2)) 3. Appeals – Grounds – Criticism of grounds having no influence on the operative part of the judgment under appeal – Invalid plea in law 1. In accordance with Article 225(1) EC and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal lies on points of law only. The General Court has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence. The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence thus do not, save when they distort the facts or evidence, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal. The General Court is the sole judge of any need to supplement the information available to it in respect of the cases before it. Whether or not the evidence before it is sufficient is a matter to be appraised by it alone and is not subject to review by the Court of Justice on appeal, except where that evidence has been distorted or the inaccuracy of the findings of the General Court is apparent from the documents in the case-file. (see paras 69, 75) 2. Facts not submitted by the parties before the departments of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) may not be submitted at the stage of the action brought before the General Court. The General Court is called upon to assess the legality of the decision of the Board of Appeal by reviewing the application of European Union law made by that board, particularly in the light of facts which were submitted to the latter, but that Court may not carry out such a review by taking into account matters of fact newly produced before it. In addition, the European Union judicature, which has jurisdiction only within the limits set by Article 73(2) of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, is not required to carry out a complete review in order to determine whether or not a plant variety lacks distinctiveness for the purposes of Article 7(1) of that regulation but is entitled, in the light of the scientific and technical complexity of that condition, compliance with which must be verified by means of a technical examination which, as is clear from Article 55 of Regulation No 1200/94, is to be entrusted by the CPVO to one of the competent national offices, to limit itself to a review of manifest errors of assessment. (see paras 76-77) 3. The Court of Justice will reject outright complaints directed against grounds of a judgment of the General Court included purely for the sake of completeness since they cannot lead to the judgment’s being set aside and are therefore nugatory. (see para. 122)