Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EC) 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights () (95/C 236/24)

On 1 June 1995 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Pricolo as Rapporteur-General for its Opinion.

At its 326th Plenary Session (meeting of 1 June 1995), the Economic and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion.

1. Introduction

1.1. Council Regulation (EC) 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 established specific provisions for the granting, at Community level, of plant variety rights. In essence, the system accords industrial property rights to persons who breed, discover or develop new plant varieties.

1.2. In order to offer proper legal protection to breeders of new plants, and at the same time ensure that the Community system is compatible with the requirements of the single market, a Community Plant Variety Office was set up. The office, which reports to the Commission, has sole responsibility for such matters as the granting or termination of Community plant variety rights, the approval of a variety denomination or the amendment of an approved variety denomination, and objections to an application for a Community plant variety right or to a proposal for a variety denomination.

1.3. Regulation 2100/94 stipulates that appeals against decisions taken by the office may be lodged with its 'Boards of Appeal' (jurisdiction of first instance), and that a further action against the conclusions of these boards can be brought before the EU Court of Justice (jurisdiction of second instance).

1.4. The present proposal corrects some inaccuracies in the German and English versions of Regulation 2100/94, and seeks to align the wording of the Regulation with that of Council Regulation 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark, as regards action brought before the Court of Justice against the boards of appeal.

2. General comments

2.1. The Committee welcomed the setting-up of the Community variety rights system, and now endorses the Commission's move to incorporate into Regulation 2100/94 the wording of Article 63 of Regulation 40/94 regulating the appeal procedure to the Court of Justice for the Community Trade Mark.

2.2. A uniform set of rules embracing the various sectors of industrial and commercial property will ensure that the appeal procedures are consistent and will eliminate the discrepancies which currently exist - albeit as regards formal and not substantive aspects - between the Regulation on the Community Trade Mark and the Regulation on plant variety rights.

2.3. However, the Committee suggests that the Council take a definitive decision as soon as possible on where the Community Plant Variety Office is to have its headquarters so that it can be set up as soon as possible and get on with the tasks incumbent upon it under the Regulation.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The Committee has no major reservations about the Commission proposal, and endorses its aims and content.

3.1.1. However, in the revised Article 73(5), the Committee would stress the case for replacing the words 'two months' by 'sixty days'.

3.1.2. In the Committee's view, this would provide a more definite deadline for bringing an action before the Court of Justice.

Done at Brussels, 1 June 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 117, 12. 5. 1995, p. 10.