8.0.91 Otncial]ournalot the European Communities l^oC^O^ 
Opinionon theproposalfor aCouncilRegulatio^ (EEC) onCommunity plant variety 
rights(^) 
(91BC^0BloE 
On 18 September 1990 the council decided to consult the Economic and social Committee, 
under Article 198 of theTreatyestablishing the European Economic Community,on the 
abovementioned proposal 
The section for Agriculture and Eisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Commit 
tee'sworloon the subject, adopted its Opinion on7Decemberl990.The Rapporteur was 
^ir^chnieders^ 
At its ^.8^nd plenary session (meeting of 18 December 1990) the Economic and social 
committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The committee welcomes the Commission pro 
posal for a Regulation on community plant variety 
rights. 
1.1.1. In its proposal, the Commission largely 
accepted the E^C's Opinion of 1989 on protection of 
biotechnological discoveries. 
1.^. TheC^ommittee welcomes the factthattheC^om 
mission, by consulting all affected groups, has presented 
a proposal which takes account of the following 
requirements^ 
a) completion of the single ^iarket^ 
b) the need for agriculture to respect the environments 
c) appropriate protection for plantbreeders'services^ 
d) stimulus for new varieties^ 
e) the UPOVsystem(developed by the International 
Union forthe Protection of^ewVarietiesofPlants^ 
U^o^^^r^^o^^^o^^^^ro^^o^^O^^ 
r^o^V^^^). 
1.^. TheCommitteenotes thattheCommunity is 
involved in the current UPOV negotiations and will try 
to ensure that the proposed Regulationaccords with 
the definitive te^t of the UPOV Convention. 
1.^. The Committee takes the view that the new 
rules will provideprotection for the rights of plants 
breeders in the C^ommunity,throughasingle proposal 
andasingledecision^thisshouldencouragebreeders 
to apply for protection covering the entire community 
area. This procedure would constitute a great step 
forward, since atpresent breeders must apply separately 
for plant variety rights for each country.On the other 
hand it remains open to breeders to confine themselves 
^Ol^Der^L^.^t^DL to an application to the relevant national office if cer^ 
tainplantvarieties are suitable forcultivationonly in 
smaller regions. 
IBo. ^ith regard to plant material, the commission 
proposal also regulates the relationship between plant 
variety rights and patent law to the advantage of plant 
variety rights. 
1.^. The committee is pleased to note that the welL 
tried principle of agricultural exemptions according to 
the type of crop and current practice is to be regulated 
uniformly in the Community,usingaspecial procedure. 
An e^act definition is needed for the application of this 
principle, especially for flowers and decorative plants. 
1.^.1. In this content it-welcomes the fact that the 
arrangement allowed in the territory ofthe former CDR 
(abolition of agricultural exemptions) will be subsumed 
into common rules when this proposalbecomesfully 
effective. 
1.7. The committee notes with satisfaction that the 
commission intends to publishascale of charges which 
should encourage many plantbreeders to apply for 
rights in the Community area, and which at the same 
time takes account of thefinancial circumstances of 
small and mediumsizedplantbreeding enterprises. 
^. specific comments 
^.L Arr^e^^^ 
The Committee would like this provision to take 
account of the influence which farming practices, and 
especially soil and climate conditions have on the mor 
phological and histological features of the individuals 
in a ta^on—possibly even causing substantial diver 
gences in standards.It is suggested that the phrase^in 
similarenvironmental and farming conditions'be added 
after ^of its components. 
No C 60/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 3. 91 
2.2. Article 10(1) 
The time-limit for new varieties should be extended to 
two years, at least for certain varieties, in order to 
obtain more plant variety information. 
2.3. Article 12 
The requirement for non-Community nationals to des­
ignate a procedural representative carries the risk that 
the same requirement may be imposed on Community 
nationals in third countries. This would mainly affect 
small and medium-sized enterprises. The same applies 
the other way round for non-Community enterprises, 
whether or not they have subsidiaries in the Com­
munity. This risk of unequal treatment arising from 
structural causes should be weighed against the admin­
istrative need for a national contact. 
2.4. Article 13 
The Committee would like the Article to include a 
practical definition of the 'agricultural exemption', 
possibly reading as follows: 
'The agricultural exemption covers acts of breeding/ 
reproducing the variety and processing it, carried 
Done at Brussels, 18 December 1990. out by growers who use their agricultural produce 
for resowing/replanting their land, regardless of 
whether the grower effects these acts himself or as 
part of unpaid mutual help between growers in 
return for other agricultural services.' 
The Committee notes that in the Commission's, view 
it is permissible for a grower to have his seed stock 
cleaned and sorted by others in return for payment. It 
would point out the need to prevent abuse of the 
'agricultural exemption'. 
2.5. Article 18 
The Committee would prefer the term of the Com­
munity plant variety right not to run in general for 30 
or 50 years. In particular, shorter time-limits should be 
possible for varieties on which technical progress is 
rapid (e.g. some annual varieties of field-produce, or 
fast-growing tree varieties). 
2.6. Article 54 
The Committee wishes to point out expressly that the 
concept of Community plant variety rights, together 
with the natural character of the protected material, 
make it essential for the plant-breeder to have a say in 
choosing the Examination Office. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis STAEDELIN