Case C-56/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH (Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Processing services — Obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information to the holder of the Community right — Requirements regarding the time and content of an application for information)
Date: 2012-11-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, interpretation of the law, marketing, plant variety right, seed








C_2013009EN.01001101.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
(Case C-56/11) (1)

(Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Processing services - Obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information to the holder of the Community right - Requirements regarding the time and content of an application for information)
2013/C 9/15
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG

Defendant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1) and of Article 9(2) and (3) 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 (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14) — Obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information to the holder of the Community right — Requirements regarding the time and content of an application for information capable of forming the basis of the obligation to provide information

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 9(3) 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 of 3 December 1998, is to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information on the protected varieties in question is established if the request for information referring to a given marketing year was submitted before the expiry of that marketing year. However, there may be such an obligation so far as concerns information relating to up to three preceding marketing years, in so far as the holder of a Community plant variety right submitted a first request in respect of the same varieties and the same supplier of processing services during the first of the preceding marketing years covered by the request for information.










2.


The sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights read in conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, is to be interpreted as meaning that the request for information made by the holder of a Community plant variety right to a supplier of processing services need not contain evidence to support the indications put forward therein. Moreover, the fact that a farmer has planted under contract a protected plant variety cannot, by itself, constitute an indication that a supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by planting propagating material of that variety for planting. Such a fact may, however, in the light of the other circumstances of the case, lead to the conclusion that there is such an indication, which is for the referring court to determine in the dispute before it.






(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.