Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 —
Schniga v OCVV — Brookfield New Zealand and Elaris (Gala Schnitzer)
(Joined Cases T‑91/14 and T‑92/14)
Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the apple variety Gala Schnitzer — Technical examination — Distinctiveness —Test guidelines — Discretion enjoyed by the President of the CPVO
1.                     Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Plea based on provisions erroneously stated — Admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 48-52)
2.                     Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Procedural role of the Community Plant Variety Office — Right of the Office, although designated as the defendant, to support the applicant’s claims (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 172) (see paras 70, 71)
3.                     Acts of the institutions — Temporal application — Procedural rules — Substantive rules — Distinction — Retrospective effect of a substantive rule — Conditions (see para. 75)
4.                     Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Technical examination — Discretion of the CPVO — Scope — Decisions of the Office concerning guiding principles — Legal nature — Self-limitation of its discretion (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Arts 7(1) and (2), and 56(2); Commission Regulation No 1239/95, Arts 22, 23 and 27) (see paras 81, 83-86)
5.                     Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Technical examination — Account taken of a character not envisaged by the guiding principles in force — Not permissible — Retrospective authorisation of the use of such a character by the President of the CPVO — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 56(2); Commission Regulation No 1239/95, Arts 22 and 23) (see paras 87, 92, 93)
6.                     Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Decision based on several pillars of reasoning, each sufficient to justify the operative part — Decision on the protection of plant varieties — Pleas relating to an error or other illegality affecting only one of the grounds — Pleas not entailing the annulment of the decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 98, 99)
Re:
ACTION brought against two decisions of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 20 September 2013 (Cases A 004/2007 and A 003/2007) concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the actions;
2.
Orders Schniga Srl to pay the costs incurred by Brookfield New Zealand Limited and by Elaris SNC and to pay its own costs. The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) is ordered to bear its own costs.