Case C-509/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 October 2010 — Josef Geistbeck and Thomas Geistbeck v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
Date: 2010-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: crop production, indemnification, industrial property, interpretation of the law, protection of plant life








C_2011030EN.01001501.xml










29.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 October 2010 — Josef Geistbeck and Thomas Geistbeck v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
(Case C-509/10)
()
2011/C 30/24
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Josef Geistbeck and Thomas Geistbeck

Defendant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Questions referred

The following questions on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (‘the Regulation on plant variety rights’ or ‘the CPVR Regulation’) (1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights (‘the Community Planting Regulation’) (2) are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to point (b) of the first paragraph and the third paragraph of Article 267






(a)


Must the reasonable compensation which a farmer must pay to the holder of a Community plant variety right in accordance with Article 94(1) of the CPVR Regulation because he has used propagating material of a protected variety obtained through planting and has not fulfilled the obligations laid down in Article 14(3) of the CPVR Regulation and Article 8 of the Community Planting Regulation, be calculated on the basis of the average amount of the fee charged for the licensed production of a corresponding quantity of propagating material of protected varieties of the plant species concerned in the same area, or must the (lower) remuneration which would be payable in the event of authorised planting under the fourth indent of Article 14(3) of the CPVR Regulation and Article 5 of the Community Planting Regulation be taken as a basis for the calculation instead?










(b)


In the event that only the remuneration for authorised planting must be taken as a basis for the calculation: in the circumstances described above, may the holder, in the event of a single intentional or negligent infringement, calculate the damage for which he must be compensated in accordance with Article 94(2) of the CPVR Regulation as a lump sum based on the fee for the grant of a licence for the production of propagating material?










(c)


Is it permitted or even required, when assessing the reasonable compensation due under Article 94(1) of the CPVR Regulation or the further compensation due under Article 94(2) of the CPVR Regulation, for the special monitoring costs of an organisation which protects the rights of numerous holders to be taken into account in such a way that double the compensation usually agreed, or double the remuneration due under the fourth indent of Article 14(3) of the CPVR Regulation, is awarded?






(1)  OJ 1994 L 227, p.1.

(2)  OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14.