Annual report 2013.
Date: 2014-06-26
Institutions: Community Plant Variety Office
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, activity report

C
-
N
E
-
1
0
0
-
4
1
-
C
A
-
G
T

•

5
4
8
2
-
0
8
6
1
N
S
S
I

Annual report 2013

3 boulevard Maréchal Foch • CS 10121
49101 ANGERS CEDEX 2 • FRANCE
Tel. +33 (0)2 41 25 64 00 • Fax +33 (0)2 41 25 64 10 
cpvo@cpvo.europa.eu • www.cpvo.europa.eu

Служба на Общността за сортовете растения

Oficina Comunitaria de Variedades Vegetales

Odrůdový úřad Společenství

EF-Sortsmyndigheden

Gemeinschaftliches Sortenamt

Ühenduse Sordiamet

Κοινοτικό Γραφείο Φυτικών Пοικιλιών  

Community Plant Variety Office

Office communautaire des variétés végétales

An Oifig Chomhphobail um Chineálacha Plandaí

Ured Zajednice za zaštitu biljnih sorti

Ufficio comunitario delle varietà vegetali

Kopienas Augu šķirņu birojs 

Bendrijos augalų veislių tarnyba

Közösségi  Növényfatja-hivatal

L-Uffiċju Komunitarju dwar il-Varjetajiet tal-Pjanti

Communautair Bureau voor plantenrassen

Wspólnotowy Urząd Ochrony Odmian

Instituto Comunitário das Variedades Vegetais

Oficiul Comunitar pentru Soiuri de Plante

Úrad Spoločenstva pre odrody rastlín

Urad Skupnosti za rastlinske sorte

Yhteisön kasvilajikevirasto

Gemenskapens växtsortsmyndighet

 
 
 
Annual report 2013

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

ISBN 978-92-9152-151-7  
doi:10.2803/14944

© European Union, 2014 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Italy

Printed on white chlorine-free PaPer

CONTENTS

1. 

Introduction by Martin Ekvad, President of the CPVO 

2. 

 Foreword by Bronislava Bátorová, Chairperson of the 
Administrative Council 
2.1. 
2.2.  Analysis and assessment of the authorising officer’s report 

Introduction 

3.  The Community plant variety rights system 

4.  The Administrative Council 

5.  Organisation of the CPVO 

6.  Quality audit system 

6.1.  Assessment of examination offices 
6.2.  Second cycle of assessments 

7.  Research and development projects 

7.1.  Projects approved 
7.2.  Projects underway in 2013 
7.3.  Follow‑up of finalised R & D projects 

8.  Budget 

8.1.  Overview — out‑turn 
8.2.  Revenue 
8.3.  Expenditure 
8.4.  Conclusion 

9.  Developments of the system — regulatory 

9.1.  Evaluation of the CPVR system 
9.2.  EU legislation on plant reproductive material 
9.3.  Fees 
9.4.  Enforcement 

10.  Developments of the system — technical 

10.1.  Applications for Community plant variety protection 
10.2.  Grants of protection 
10.3.  Technical examinations 
10.4.  Technical liaison officers (TLOs) 

5

7
7
8

10

12

17

22
22
22

23
23
24
26

29
29
29
29
30

31
31
31
31
32

33
33
46
48
55

11.  Variety denominations 

58
11.1.  The CPVO Variety Finder: latest developments 
58
11.2.  An increased use of the service of cooperation with EU Member States  60
11.3.   A pilot project for enhanced cooperation in denomination 

testing with the KAVB 

11.4.   Activities for the development and the harmonisation of the 

rules for suitability of variety denominations 

62

63

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • CONTENTS

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12.  Information technology 

12.1.  E‑services 
12.2.  Operational improvements 
12.3.  Communication tools 
12.4.  Infrastructure development 

13.   Cooperation with the Directorate‑General for Health and 

Consumers 
13.1.  Standing Committee on Community Plant Variety Rights 
13.2.   Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material 

for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry 

13.3.  Standing Committee on Propagating Material of Ornamental Plants 
13.4.   Standing Committee on Propagating Material and 

Plants of Fruit Genera and Species 

13.5.  Council working parties 

14.  External relations 

14.1.  Contacts with external organisations 
14.2.  Training and promotion of the CPVR system 

15.  Public access to documents 

16.  Report of the data protection officer (DPO) 

16.1.  Legal background 
16.2.  Role and tasks of the DPO 
16.3.  Report of the DPO for 2013 

17.  Appeal procedures 

17.1.  Composition of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO 
17.2.  Decisions of the Board of Appeal in 2013 
17.3.   Disputes concerning the costs of proceedings to be recovered 
under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court 
and Article 145 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 

17.4.  Further appeals to the Court of Justice in 2013 
17.5.   Appeals received by the CPVO and decisions reached 

by the Board of Appeal since its inception (statistics) 

18.  Conflicts of interests 

64
64
64
64
64

65
65

65
65

66
66

67
67
70

73

74
74
74
74

76
76
77

80
82

85

88

4

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Martin Ekvad

1.

INTRODUCTION BY MARTIN EKVAD, 
PRESIDENT OF THE CPVO

In 2013 we had the pleasure of welcoming Croatia to the European Union (EU), which had 
the effect that EU titles are now valid in 28 Member States. We have already had the privilege 
of working with Croatia in the multi‑beneficiary programme, and, by the end of 2013, we 
decided together with the Croatian authorities to organise a seminar on the enforcement of 
plant variety rights in Zagreb in June 2014.

After 18 years of activities, it can be concluded that there is still room for expansion of the 
Community plant variety rights (CPVR) system. The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) 
had a record year in 2013. The Office had its highest level of applications (3 297) and, with 
over 2 700 new titles granted and with a relatively low rate of surrender of titles, saw the 
total number of grants in force rise above 21 500. The budgetary accounts show a positive 
net out‑turn of EUR 339 000, which is less than in 2012 but in line with forecasts and the 
plan to bring the free reserve to a reasonable level. This is also in line with the CPVO mission 
statement, in which it is underlined that the processing of applications should be done at 
affordable costs. The level of the free reserve will continue to go down, taking into account 
the change in the annual fee from EUR 300 to EUR 250 as from 1 January 2014.

The increase in workload following the increase in applications and titles in force has been 
absorbed  by  existing  human  resources,  with  a  constant  search  for  more  efficient  work 
processes.

A  cost  calculation  exercise  was  finalised  in  2013,  which  in  practice  means  that  the  CPVO 
will pay more for technical examinations to the examination offices as from 1 January 2014. 
This increase will be reflected by increases in the fees for technical examinations paid by 
applicants  as  from  1 January 2015.  The  level  of  the  fees  for  technical  examinations  will 
depend, amongst other things, on the results of ongoing discussions in the Administrative 
Council  on  whether  the  fees  regulation  should  reflect  the  remunerations  that  the  CPVO 
pay  to  examination  offices  or  if  breeders  should  continue  to  pay  less  for  the  technical 
examinations than the amounts paid by the CPVO to the examination offices. Presently the 
difference is paid by the CPVO through income from the application fee and the annual fee. 
A decision on this will be taken at the Administrative Council meeting in March 2014.

In  2013  the  European  Parliament  commissioned  a  study  on  the  financial  aspects  of  fully 
self‑financed agencies (the CPVO and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market 
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)). From this study and from a debate in the Parliament on 
the study it can be concluded that self‑financed agencies are an efficient and good model 
for how EU agencies could be run, under the condition that surpluses and the setting of fees 
are handled in an appropriate manner.

During the year, the CPVO has closely followed the discussions in the Parliament and the 
Council on the proposed regulation on plant reproductive material, in which new tasks for 
the CPVO are proposed. Although recent developments show that the legislator is hesitant 
with regard to some aspects of the proposal, the CPVO would welcome the implementation 
of the proposed new tasks.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • INTRODUCTION BY MARTIN EKVAD, PRESIDENT OF THE CPVO

5

This introduction has been focused on financial matters, but when reading the annual report 
you will discover that the CPVO has been involved in a number of important projects during 
the year.

Finally,  I  would  like  to  thank  the  staff  of  the  CPVO  for  their  good  cooperation  and  the 
high‑quality  work  performed,  and  Ms  Bronislava  Bátorová,  the  Chairperson  of  the 
Administrative Council, for her good cooperation during 2013.

6

2.

FOREWORD BY BRONISLAVA 
BÁTOROVÁ, CHAIRPERSON OF THE 
ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL

2.1. 

Introduction

Since my election as the chair of the Administrative Council more than a year has passed, 
and I am happy to inform you about its latest activities.

The  Administrative  Council  adopted  in  the  previous  year  the  multiannual  staff  policy 
plan for 2014–16 and the budget for 2014, and unanimously appointed Ms Anne‑Marie 
Fernandez as Accounting Officer of the CPVO from 1 March 2013.

The  members  of  the  Administrative  Council  unanimously  decided  to  forward  to  the 
Commission  a  proposal  to  amend  the  fees  regulation  so  as  to  reduce  the  annual  fee 
from EUR 300 to EUR 250 as from 1 January 2014. They also agreed to the launching of 
a cost calculation exercise and charged the CPVO with exploring the best legal solution 
concerning the future relationship with clients and examination offices.

The Administrative Council adopted the Quality Audit Service review report for 2012 and 
all the entrustment recommendations.

The members of the Administrative Council took note of the provisional accounts and 
the financial situation of the CPVO and projections for the end of 2013. The net result was 
significantly down (– 55 %) at the end of August 2013. At the end of the year the budget 
result was considerably lower than in 2012 but remained on the plus side. The free reserve 
fell to around EUR 7 million. The decrease in the budget result is in conformity with the 
budgetary plan for the coming years in order to settle the agreed level of the free reserve.

According to the 2014 annual work programme, the CPVO will focus on three challenges, 
namely the revision of processes through the carrying out of a business process review, 
which will also serve as a basis for future IT developments; the implementation of the 
Commission general policy of staff reduction; and the fee structure.

The members of the Administrative Council adopted the proposal of the CPVO president 
to establish an audit fees working group responsible for proposing options which would 
be submitted to the Administrative Council for discussion at the meeting in spring and 
then for a vote in autumn 2014.

Bronislava Bátorová

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • FOREWORD BY BRONISLAVA BÁTOROVÁ, CHAIRPERSON OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL

7

December

It  is  very  positive  to  note  that  the  number  of  applications  received  for  CPVRs  from 
27 April 1995  to  31 
055.  In  the  last  10  years  the  number  of 
applications has stabilised, averaging about 2 500 applications per year. The number of 
varieties protected under the Community system over the last 10 years was 21 550. This 
indicates the stability of the system.

 2013  was  48 

I would like to thank the members of the Administrative Council for their valuable input 
during the year and for the contributions they made to the activities of the CPVO.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the staff of the Office for their important work 
and professional attitude.

Finally, I would like to express my sorrow at the loss of our precious colleague François 
Boulineau from the Groupe d’Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES), 
who  dedicated  his  professional  career  to  plant  varieties,  distinctness,  uniformity  and 
stability (DUS) tests and the building of the CPVR system in France, and inside and outside 
of the EU. His untimely passing is a great loss.

2.2.  Analysis and assessment of the authorising 

officer’s report

The president of the CPVO presented the annual activity report, including the declaration 
of the authorising officer, for the year 2013 to the Administrative Council at its meeting 
in Nitra, Slovakia, on 18 March 2014.

The Administrative Council analysed and assessed the report and came to the following 
conclusions.

•	 In  2013  the  level  of  applications  was  3  297,  a  15  %  increase  on  the  previous  year, 
due in part to the reduction in the application fee from 1 January 2013. Fee income 
remained relatively stable, with an increase in annual fees and examination fees being 
offset by a reduction in application fees and interest income. The budget out‑turn was 
significantly lower than in 2012, and at EUR 339 000 is close to equilibrium. The free 
reserve has also fallen for the first time since 2008.

•	 The Administrative Council takes note of the results of the internal audits. It will pay 

attention to the follow‑up to the business process review.

•	 The  Administrative  Council  takes  note  of  the  information  on  ex  post  verifications, 

negotiated procedures and the confirmation of instructions.

8

•	 The Administrative Council is satisfied with the declaration of the authorising officer 
that his report gives a true view, that he has reasonable assurances that the resources 
assigned to the activities described in his report have been used for their intended 
purpose and in accordance with the principles of sound financial management, and 
that the control procedures put in place give the necessary guarantees concerning 
the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

•	 The Administrative Council is satisfied that the president of the CPVO is unaware of 

any matter which could harm the interests of the CPVO.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • FOREWORD BY BRONISLAVA BÁTOROVÁ, CHAIRPERSON OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL

9

3.

THE COMMUNITY PLANT VARIETY 
RIGHTS SYSTEM

The  introduction  of  a  Community  plant  variety  system  in  1995  has  proved  to  be 
a  successful  initiative  that  has  been  welcomed  by  the  business  community  seeking 
intellectual property protection for new plant varieties.

The fact that protection, guaranteeing exclusive exploitation rights for a plant variety, is 
acquired in 28 Member States of the European Union (EU) through a single application 
to the CPVO makes the Community system for protecting new varieties very attractive.

The  Community  plant  variety  system  is  not  intended  to  replace  or  even  to  harmonise 
national  systems,  but  rather  to  exist  alongside  them  as  an  alternative;  indeed,  it  is  not 
possible for the owner of a variety to exploit simultaneously a CPVR and a national right or 
a patent granted in relation to that variety. Where a CPVR is granted in relation to a variety 
for which a national right or patent has already been granted, the national right or patent 
is rendered ineffective for the duration of the CPVR.

The legal basis for the Community plant variety system is found in Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2100/94 (hereinafter ‘the basic regulation’). On receipt of an application for a CPVR, the 
Office must establish that the variety is novel and that it satisfies the criteria of distinctness, 
uniformity  and  stability  (DUS).  The  Office  may  arrange  for  a  technical  examination  to 
determine DUS to be carried out by the competent offices in Member States or by other 
appropriate agencies outside the EU. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of work 
where  such  a  technical  examination  is  being  —  or  has  already  been  —  carried  out  in 
relation  to  a  variety  for  official  purposes,  the  Office  may,  subject  to  certain  conditions, 
accept the results of that examination by taking over the report concerned.

Anyone  may  lodge  an  objection  to  the  granting  of  a  CPVR  with  the  Office  in  writing 
and within specified time limits. The grounds for objection are restricted to allegations 
either  that  the  conditions  laid  down  in  Articles  7  to  11  of  the  basic  regulation  are  not 
met (distinctness, uniformity, stability, novelty or entitlement) or that the proposed variety 
denomination is unsuitable due to one of the impediments listed in Article 63. Objectors 
become  parties  to  the  application  proceedings  and  are  entitled  to  access  relevant 
documents.

Except in two specific instances where a direct action against a decision of the Office may 
be brought before the Court of Justice, a right of appeal against such a decision lies with 
a Board of Appeal consisting of a chairperson appointed by the Council of the European 
Union and two other members selected by the chairperson from a list compiled by the 
Administrative Council. The addressee of a decision, or another person who is directly and 
individually concerned by the decision, may appeal against it. After examining the appeal, 
the board may exercise any power within the competence of the Office or refer the case 
back to the Office, which is bound by the board’s decision. Actions against decisions of 
the board may be brought before the Court of Justice, based in Luxembourg. Decisions 
of the Board of Appeal and of the Court of Justice are published on the Office’s website in 
the plant variety rights case‑law database.

10

The table in Chapter 17 shows the number of notices of appeal lodged with the CPVO and 
the decisions reached by the Board of Appeal.

Once granted, the duration of a CPVR is 25 years, or 30 years in the case of potato, vine 
and tree varieties. These periods may be extended by legislation for a further 5 years in 
relation to specific genera or species. The effect of a CPVR is that certain specified activities 
in relation to variety constituents or the harvested material of the newly protected variety 
require  the  prior  authorisation  of  the  right  holder;  such  authorisation  may  be  made 
subject to conditions and limitations. Infringement of a CPVR entitles the right holder to 
commence civil proceedings against the perpetrator of the infringement.

Registers, which are open to public inspection, contain details of all applications received 
and  all  CPVRs  granted  by  the  Office.  Every  2  months,  the  Office  publishes  its  Official 
Gazette of the Community Plant Variety Office, which contains the information entered in 
the registers. Information on applications and titles in force is also found in a database 
accessible via the Office’s website.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • THE COMMUNITY PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS SYSTEM

11

4.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL

The CPVO is supervised by an Administrative Council comprising representatives of the 
Member States and the European Commission and their alternates. The Administrative 
Council monitors the activities of the Office. In particular, it is responsible for examining 
the  management  report  of  the  president,  adopting  the  Office’s  budget  and  granting 
discharge  to  the  president  in  respect  of  its  implementation.  In  addition,  it  can  provide 
advice,  establish  rules  on  working  methods  within  the  Office  and  issue  guidelines  on 
technical examinations, committees of the Office and general matters.

Since  Croatia  joined  the  EU  on  1 July 2013,  the  Administrative  Council  of  the  CPVO 
counted a new member as representative of Croatia in its October 2013 meeting.

The Administrative Council met twice in 2013, on 27 February in Angers, France and on 
2 October in Brussels, Belgium.

At  the  meeting  on  27 February 2013  in  Angers,  the  members  of  the  Administrative 
Council adopted the following.

•	 The authorising officer’s report for 2012 and analysis and evaluation of the authorising 
officer’s  report.  This  report  was  included  in  the  annual  report  2012  and  sent  to  the 
Court of Auditors.

•	 The discharge of the president of the CPVO for implementation of the 2011 budget.
•	 The appointment of Ms Anne‑Marie Fernandez as CPVO accountant from 1 March 2013.
•	 The  proposal  to  amend  the  fees  regulation  so  as  to  reduce  the  annual  fee  from 
EUR 300 to EUR 250 as from 1 January 2014 and to send it to the European Commission.

•	 The draft budget for 2014.
•	 The entrustment of the following examination offices:

(a)  University of Aarhus in Denmark;
(b)  Ministry of Agriculture in Greece.

 ʲ In the case of France (GEVES), the extension of scope was granted as requested.
 ʲ  In  the  case  of  Romania  (Institutul  de  Stat  pentru  Testarea  şi  Înregistrarea 
Soiurilor (ISTIS)), the suspensory period of the entrustment was prolonged until 
the next Administrative Council meeting.
•	 The Quality Audit Service review report for 2012.
•	 Seven revisions of technical protocols for Phaseolus vulgaris L. (CPVO‑TP/012/4), Solanum 
lycopersicum  L.  (CPVO‑TP/044/4),  Spinacia  oleracea  L.  (CPVO‑TP/055/2),  Raphanus 
sativus L. var. sativus and Raphanus sativus L. Var. niger (Mill.) S. Kerner (CPVO‑TP/064/2), 
Cynara cardunculus L. (CPVO‑TP/184/2), Calibrachoa Llave & Lex (CPVO‑TP/207/2) and 
Pastinaca sativa L. (CPVO/TP/218/2).

•	 The entrustment of the examination offices proposed by the CPVO for the testing of 

21 new species.

•	 Amendment  to  the  rules  of  procedure  of  the  Administrative  Council  by  which 
Administrative Council decisions relating to entrustment of examination offices will be 
ruled by Article 8(2) of those rules.

12

The members of the Administrative Council also took note of:

•	 the report of the president of the CPVO with its statistics;
•	 the CPVO social report for 2012;
•	 the internal audit report for 2012;
•	 the report on the first audit cycle (2010–12) by the Quality Audit Service;
•	 the provisional accounts for 2012;
•	 the report on the 2012 annual meeting of the CPVO with its examination offices;
•	 the report on the state of affairs regarding the CPVO Board of Appeal and the Court of 

Justice;

•	 the multiannual staff policy (MSPP) for 2014–16.

The members of the Administrative Council also agreed to the launch of a cost calculation 
exercise and charged the CPVO to explore the best legal solution concerning the future 
relationship with clients and examination offices.

They furthermore:

•	 encouraged the CPVO to continue working, on the basis of their last discussions, on 

the possible centralisation of DUS testing for small species;

•	 were  informed  that  the  CPVO  would  shortly  undertake  a  review  of  its  internal 

procedures though a business process review;

•	 decided to postpone the seminar on the interface between patents and PVRs in 2014.

At the meeting on 2 October 2013 in Brussels, the members of the Administrative Council 
adopted the following.

•	 The second supplementary amending budget for 2013.
•	 The entrustment of the following examination offices:
(a)  Centro per la Ricerca in Viticoltura (CRA‑VIT) in Italy;
(b)  Centre Wallon de Recherches Agronomiques (CRA‑W) in Belgium;
(c)  Centralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych (Coboru) in Poland;
(d)  National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) in the United Kingdom;
(e)  National Food Chain Safety Office (NÉBIH) in Hungary.

 ʲ  In the case of Romania (ISTIS), the examination office withdrew its application 

for entrustment and will make a new application at a later stage.

 ʲ  In the case of Greece (Ministry of Agriculture), the entrustment has been confirmed 
following a surveillance visit which verified that remedial measures have indeed 
been implemented.

•	 The entrustment of the examination offices proposed by the CPVO for the testing of 

37 new species.

•	 The  entrustment  of  the  Bundessortenamt  (Germany)  for  the  testing  of  bicoloured 

hydrangea varieties.

•	 The amended version of the new CPVO technical protocol template.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL

13

•	 Creation of an audit fees working group aiming at proposing options for the financing 
of quality audit activities which would be submitted to the Administrative Council for 
discussion in spring 2014 and adoption in autumn 2014.

The members of the Administrative Council also took note of the following.

•	 The report of the president of the CPVO with its statistics.
•	 The provisional accounts for 2013.
•	 The report on the calculation of costs and fees (new annual fee from 1 January 2014 
and the proposal to be presented in March 2014 for a 100 % recovery of the costs of 
DUS examinations).

•	 The study produced by the European Parliament on ‘The income of fully self‑financed 

agencies and the EU budget’ (available on the CPVO website).

•	 The pilot project with the Koninklijke Algemeene Vereeniging voor Bloembollencultuur 

(KAVB) in relation to the testing of proposed variety denominations.
•	 The draft strategy for the CPVO’s activities beyond the EU borders.
•	 The 2014 annual work programme of the CPVO.

The members of the Administrative Council were also consulted on possible future use of 
electronic technical questionnaires as an annex to the CPVO protocols. The members of 
the Administrative Council agreed that in the future the technical questionnaires would 
only be available electronically. This would make it possible to make any updates available 
immediately.

Furthermore, some technical discussions were held during this meeting as regards the 
following.

•	 The  CPVO  policy  regarding  the  status  of  plant  material  presented  for  reference 
purposes. The members of the Administrative Council deferred the adoption of the 
CPVO’s proposal clarifying this status until March 2014.

•	 The situation regarding the agricultural and vegetable species covered not by CPVO 
technical protocols but by the European directives on seeds. The members referred to 
technical experts for their input.

•	 The centralisation of DUS testing for small species in the ornamental sector and the 
disease resistance characteristics in the CPVO technical protocols for vegetable species. 
The members referred both items to technical experts for their input.

Finally, the members of the Administrative Council were informed, by oral presentations 
from representatives of the European Commission, of the following.

•	 The  conclusions  of  the  interinstitutional  working  group  on  EU  agencies,  which  had 
culminated in a road map presented at the end of 2012 by the Commission. In particular, 
the  members  of  the  Administrative  Council  took  note  that,  as  from  1 January 2014,  it 
will  be  the  Administrative  Council  and  not  the  CPVO  president  that  will  adopt  CPVO 
implementing rules to the staff regulations.

14

•	 The unitary patent.
•	 The satisfactory outcome of the half‑yearly meeting of the International Treaty on Plant 

Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA international treaty).

•	 The  state  of  affairs  regarding  the  proposal  for  a  plant  reproductive  material  (PRM) 

regulation.

•	 The situation regarding the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and 
of  the  Council  on  access  to  genetic  resources  and  the  fair  and  equitable  sharing  of 
benefits arising from their utilisation in the Union.

Chairperson of the Administrative Council

Ms B. Bátorová

Vice‑Chairperson of the Administrative Council

Mr A. Mitchell

Members of the Administrative Council

Belgium

Bulgaria

Ms F. De Schutter

Ms M. Petit (alternate)

Ms B. Pavlovska

Mr T. Gadev (alternate)

Czech Republic

Member vacant

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Mr D. Jurecka (alternate)

Mr G. Deneken

Mr E. Lawaetz (alternate)

Mr U. Von Kröcher

Mr H. Freudenstein (alternate)

Ms L. Puur

Alternate vacant

Mr D. Coleman

Mr J. Claffey (alternate)

Member vacant

Mr K. Michos (alternate)

Mr A. de León Llamazares

Mr L. Salaices Sanchez (alternate)

Mr R. Tessier

Alternate vacant

Mr I. Delic (since 26.8.2013)

Alternate vacant

Ms I. Pugliese

Alternate vacant

Mr C. Christou

Mr C. Nicolaou (alternate)

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL

15

Latvia

Ms S. Kalinina

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Ms D. Bajale (alternate since 23.9.2013)

Alternate vacant (until 23.9.2013)

Ms S. Juciuviene

Ms I. Kemeziene (alternate)

Mr M. Weyland

Mr F. Kraus (alternate)

Ms A. Szenci

Alternate vacant

Ms M. Delia

Mr C. Leone Ganado (alternate)

Netherlands

Mr M. Valstar

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

Mr K. van Ettekoven (alternate)

Mr P. Zach

Mr L. Girsch (alternate)

Mr E. Gacek

Mr M. Behnke (alternate)

Ms F. Alfarroba (until 5.8.2013)

Ms A. De Almeida Cruz de Carvalho (since 5.8.2013)

Mr J. Fernandes (alternate until 5.8.2013)

Ms T. Pais Coelho (alternate since 5.8.2013)

Ms M. Cindea

Ms M. Ciora (alternate)

Member vacant (until 7.10.2013) 

Ms J. Cvelbar (since 7.10.2013)

Mr P. Grižon (alternate until 7.10.2013)

Ms H. Rakovec (alternate since 7.10.2013)

Ms B. Bátorová

Ms D. Vongrejová (alternate)

Member vacant (until 16.9.2013)

Ms T. Hietaranta (since 16.9.2013)

Mr M. Puolimatka (alternate)

Mr A. Falk (until 27.2.2013)

Mr J. Weibull (since 27.2.2013)

Mr T. Olsson (alternate until 27.2.2013)

Alternate vacant (since 27.2.2013)

United Kingdom

Mr A. Mitchell

Ms E. Nicol (alternate)

European Commission

Mr L. Miko

Ms D. Simion (alternate)

16

5.

ORGANISATION OF THE CPVO

In December 2013 the Office employed 45 persons, 11 officials and 34 temporary agents. 
Twelve nationalities from the EU’s Member States were represented.

Under  the  general  direction  of  its  president,  assisted  by  the  vice‑president,  the  Office 
is  organised  internally  into  three  units  and  support  services.  There  is  also  a  service 
responsible  for  the  quality  auditing  of  examination  offices.  This  service  is  under  the 
administrative responsibility of the president while being independent with regard to its 
audit operations.

The Technical Unit has as its principal tasks: general coordination of the various technical 
sectors  of  the  CPVR  system;  reception  and  checking  of  applications  for  protection; 
organisation  of  technical  examinations  or  takeover  reports;  organisation  of  variety 
denomination  examinations;  preparation  for  granting  of  rights;  maintenance  of  the 
Office’s registers; production of official technical publications; relations with applicants, 
national  offices,  stakeholders  and  international  organisations;  active  participation  in 
international  committees  of  technical  experts;  and  cooperation  in  the  development  of 
technical analyses and studies intended to improve the system.

The Administration Unit is active in three areas.

•	 Administrative section: public procurement; organisation of the Office’s publications; 
administration,  management  and  monitoring  of  the  Office’s  inventory  of  movable 
property  and  buildings;  administration  of  logistical  and  operational  resources  with 
a view to ensuring the smooth functioning of the Office.

•	 Financial  section:  management  of  financial  transactions,  treasury  management, 
maintenance of the budgetary and general accounts and preparation of budgets and 
financial documents; management of the fees system.

•	 IT section: ensures that the Office runs smoothly in computing terms. Its tasks include: 
analysis of the Office’s hardware and software requirements; design, development and 
installation of new programmes specific to the Office; development and maintenance 
of  the  websites  of  the  Office;  installation  of  standard  programmes;  maintenance  of 
the  computer  installation  and  its  administration;  security  of  the  computer  system; 
helpdesk and interinstitutional cooperation in computing.

The Legal Unit provides legal advice to the president and other members of staff of the 
Office, in principle on matters related to the CPVR system, but also on questions of an 
administrative nature; provides legal interpretations and opinions and also draws up draft 
legislation; participates in various CPVO committees, thus ensuring that EU procedures 
and legislation are respected; manages the administration of objections to applicants for 
CPVRs and provides the secretariat of the Office’s Board of Appeal.

The  Human  Resources  Service  deals  with  the  administration  and  management  of 
the Office’s human resources in compliance with the Staff Regulations of the European 
Commission.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • ORGANISATION OF THE CPVO

17

The  Public  Relations  Service 
manifestations (CPVO newsletter, annual report, fairs, etc.).

is  responsible  for  external  communication  and 

The Quality Audit Service is responsible for verifying that examination offices meet the 
quality standards required for providing services to the CPVO in the area of testing the 
compliance  of  candidate  varieties  with  the  distinctness,  uniformity  and  stability  (DUS) 
criteria in addition to novelty.

In  2013  the  CPVO  prepared  a  social  report  with  information  concerning  the  turnover, 
work environment and social aspects of the CPVO. The different headings covered in the 
report were employment (staff members, recruitment procedure, staff joining or leaving 
the CPVO, promotions, absenteeism, gender balance), working conditions (hours worked, 
part‑time  work,  parental  leave,  teleworking),  training  (language  training,  IT  training, 
other training) and professional relations (staff committee). The CPVO social reports from 
2006 to 2013 can be consulted on the CPVO website under the heading ‘Annual reports’.

18

O
V
P
C
E
H
T

F
O
T
R
A
H
C
N
O
I
T
A
S
I
N
A
G
R
O

t
i
d
u
A
y
t
i
l
a
u
Q

e
c
i
v
r
e
S

t
n
e
d
i
s
e
r
P
-
e
c
i
V

l
a
g
e
L

t
i
n
U

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
A

i

t
i
n
U

l
a
c
i
n
h
c
e
T

t
i
n
U

n
a
m
u
H

s
e
c
r
u
o
s
e
R

e
c
i
v
r
e
S

c
i
l

b
u
P

s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R

e
v
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
A

i

l
i
c
n
u
o
C

t
n
e
d
i
s
e
r
P

l
a
e
p
p
A
f
o
d
r
a
o
B

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • ORGANISATION OF THE CPVO

19

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/
l
a
e
p
p
A
f
o
d
r
a
o
B

/
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P
a
t
a
D

t
i
d
u
A
y
t
i
l
a
u
Q

u
a
e
r
o
D
e
u
q
n
o
r
é
V

i

r
o
s
i
v
d
A

l
a
g
e
L

e
n
r
u
o
b
t
h
g
L

i

l
e
i
r
u
M

l
a
g
e
L

e
h
t
o
t

t
n
a
t
s
i
s
s
A

y
t
i
l
a
u
Q
e
h
t
&
t
i
n
U

e
c
i
v
r
e
s

t
i
d
u
A

e
d
n
a
V
n
e
e
l
r
a
M

e
k
e
o
r
b
e
l
u
e
M

e
h
t

f
o
d
a
e
H

t
i
n
U

l
a
g
e
L

a
n
i
t
t
a
M
o
c
s
e
c
n
a
r
F

i

g
n
n
i
a
r
T

e
r
i
o
t
n
a
S
e
n
n
e
b
a
F

i

e
c
i
v
r
e
S

i

i

n
d
r
e
V
a
n
n
A

e
c
i
v
r
e
S

n
e
e
l
l
i

K
e
r
d
r
i
e
D

/
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
l

b
u
P

s
e
c
r
u
o
s
e
R
n
a
m
u
H

s
e
c
r
u
o
s
e
R
n
a
m
u
H

LEGAL UNIT

SERVICE
QUALITY AUDIT 

t
i
d
u
A
y
t
i
l
a
u
Q

r
e
d
a
e
L
m
a
e
T

n
o
u
h
c
S
d
r
a
h
r
e
G

t
n
a
t
s
i
s
s
A

y
c
n
e
d
i
s
e
r
P
e
h
t
o
t

i

e
n
o
t
n
A
e
l
l
i
r
y
C

t
n
e
d
i
s
e
r
P
-
e
c
i
V

i

o
h
n
d
o
G
s
o
l
r
a
C

t
n
e
d
i
s
e
r
P

d
a
v
k
E
n
i
t
r
a
M

d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
A

i

d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
A

i

d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
A

i

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

s
c
i
t
s
i
g
o
L

a
r
i
e
v
i
l

O

l
i

G

s
c
i
t
s
i
g
o
L

i
r
e
t
n
a
L

e
l
l
e
b
a
s
I

l

u
a
e
z
u
C
y
r
r
e
h
T

i

s
c
i
t
s
i
g
o
L

z
e
d
n
a
n
r
e
F

e
i
r
a
M
-
e
n
n
A

t
n
o
m
u
D
e
c
n
e
r
u
a
L

r
e
k
c
e
t
s
e
a
C
e
D
e
i
r
é
l
a
V

e
h
t
o
t

t
n
a
t
s
i
s
s
A

U
A
e
h
t

f
o
d
a
e
H

t
e
d
o
H
e
c
i
r
t
a
é
B

U
A
e
h
t

f
o
d
a
e
H

n
a
r
o
M

s
e
m
a
J

e
c
i
v
r
e
S
T
I

d
r
a
l
l
i

u
o
R
c
r
a
M

e
c
i
v
r
e
S
T
I

i

e
a
N
a
r
u
a
L

e
c
i
v
r
e
S
T
I

q
o
c
e
L

k
c
i
r
t
a
P

e
c
i
v
r
e
S
T
I

e
c
i
v
r
e
S
T
I

s
e
c
n
a
n
i
F

i

r
e
n
r
u
C
s
i
u
o
L
-
n
a
e
J

i

r
e
n
g
u
e
B
n
e
i
t
s
a
b
é
S

s
i
r
a
i
z
t
n
a
M
a
n
i
r
e
t
a
k
E

l
a
n
r
e
t
n
I
/
n
o
i
t
a
u
l
a
v
E

l
o
r
t
n
o
C
d
n
a

t
i
d
u
A

l
e
g
a
F

e
n

i
l
e
s
o
R

d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
A

i

s
c
i
t
s
i
g
o
L

i

a
r
i
e
x
e
T
s
e
r
a
o
S

l
e
u
n
a
M

PRESIDENCY

SUPPORT SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION UNIT (AU)

20

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s
n
o
i
t
a
n
m
o
n
e
D

i

d
n
a
r
g
e
L

i

e
t
c
d
é
n
é
B

s
n
o
i
t
a
n
m
o
n
e
D

i

s
e
a
C

i

d
u
R

s
n
o
i
t
a
n
m
o
n
e
D

i

u
a
e
n
n
o
B
e
l
o
r
a
C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

l
a
r
u
t
l
u
c
i
r
g
A

z
t
i
e
W
e
n
n
A

e
h
t
o
t

t
n
a
t
s
i
s
s
A

U
T
e
h
t

f
o
d
a
e
H

s
è
u
g
o
N
e
n

i
l

A

U
T
e
h
t

f
o
d
a
e
H
y
t
u
p
e
D

U
T
e
h
t

f
o
d
a
e
H

n
o
s
i
a
M
n
a
e
J

l

d
a
b
o
e
h
T

k
r
i

D

r
e
t
s
i
g
e
R

m
a
h
t
n
a
r
G
e
g
è
d
a
N

r
e
n
e
d
r
a
G
e
n
n
A

é

l
l
i

u
o
F

l

e
u
n
a
m
m
E
-
e
r
r
e
P

i

r
e
n
g
e
W

s
n
e
J

u
a
e
h
c
é
n
e
D
a
i
t
i
t
e
a
L

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

n
o
m
e
S

i

o
g
r
e
S

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

ł

a
k
c
e
d
o
M
-
n
u
a
r
B
a
u
z
s
r
U

l

r
e
t
s
i
g
e
R

r
e
t
s
i
g
e
R

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

l
a
t
n
e
m
a
n
r
O

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

l
a
t
n
e
m
a
n
r
O

e
l
b
a
t
e
g
e
v
d
n
a

t
i
u
r
F

l
a
t
n
e
m
a
n
r
o
d
n
a
t
i
u
r
F

TECHNICAL UNIT (TU)

t
i
n
U

l
a
c
i
n
h
c
e
T

t
n
a
t
s
i
s
s
A

e
r
o
d
o
é
h
T
e
c
n
e
r
u
a
L

i
z
z
a
p
m
a
R

a
c
s
e
c
n
a
r
F

t
r
e
b

l
i

u
G
e
n
a
l
s
i
h
G

i

t
i
n
U

l
a
c
i
n
h
c
e
T

t
n
a
t
s
i
s
s
A

t
i
n
U

l
a
c
i
n
h
c
e
T

t
n
a
t
s
i
s
s
A

r
e
t
s
i
g
e
R

i

l

d
a
S

o
c
s
e
c
n
a
r
F

.

3
1
0
2
r
e
b
m
e
c
e
D
1
3
n
o
s
t
n
e
g
a

y
r
a
r
o
p
m
e
t
d
n
a

i

s
l
a
c
fi
f
o
s
a
d
e
y
o
p
m
e
O
V
P
C
e
h
t

l

f
o
s
r
e
b
m
e
m
e
h
t

s
e
s
i
r
p
m
o
c

t
r
a
h
c
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
e
v
o
b
a

e
h
T
:
B
N

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • ORGANISATION OF THE CPVO

21

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.

QUALITY AUDIT SYSTEM

The Quality Audit Service (QAS) implements the CPVO quality audit programme. It carries 
out regular assessments at examination offices in order to verify whether these fulfil the 
entrustment requirements when testing candidate varieties against the DUS criteria. The 
assessments  relate  to  any  work  in  relation  to  DUS  activities  for  the  species  within  the 
examination offices’ scope of entrustment.

6.1.  Assessment of examination offices

The  total  of  11  assessments  carried  out  included  regular  audit  visits  following  the 
triennial cycle, but also surveillance visits and assessments carried out in order to come 
to a conclusion on a scope extension request by an examination office. The entrustment 
recommendations  to  the  members  of  the  Administrative  Council  were  generally 
positive. However, there had been a range of scope reductions, partly resulting directly 
from  assessment  visits,  partly  in  anticipation  of  audit  findings  that  would  necessitate 
substantial investments to address them. One examination office decided to discontinue 
its entrustments until further notice.

In view of scope extension requests necessitating an audit outside the regular assessment 
visits, arrangements were made in order to accommodate them in the audit programme 
without undue delay. The aim of addressing scope extension in the regular visits could 
largely be respected. All 2013 scope extension requests could be addressed with only two 
specific extension assessments.

6.2. 

Second cycle of assessments

The audit programme went into a second cycle after all the examination offices had their 
initial assessment visit between 2010 and 2012. The sequence of visits followed closely 
the first cycle, however with a shift ensuring that testing work at every entrusted office 
was  assessed  at  a  different  time  of  the  year  compared  to  the  initial  audit.  In  the  same 
perspective, the assessment team and the assessment sample were different to ensure 
a comprehensive view of the examination offices’ work.

More  than  half  of  the  23  individuals  constituting  the  pool  of  technical  experts  were 
involved in the assessments. While the overall number of experts has decreased over the 
years,  there  were  no  major  difficulties  in  securing  adequate  technical  expertise  for  the 
different missions.

The question of financing the assessment scheme was raised repeatedly. In response, an 
audit fee working group was created and mandated to prepare a proposal for discussion 
within the Administrative Council in spring 2014. The major part of that work was achieved 
towards the end of 2013.

22

7.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
PROJECTS

Following the rules established by the Administrative Council in 2002 and reviewed in 
2009 for financial support for projects of interest to the CPVR system, the Office received 
in 2013 several applications for (co‑)financing R & D projects. In this chapter, the Office 
provides updated information about projects under way and follow‑up measures taken 
in 2013 on projects already concluded.

7.1. 

Projects approved

‘Development of an improved COYU procedure’

The CPVO decided in February 2013 to co‑finance this R & D project coordinated by Adrian 
Roberts from BioSS (part of the James Hutton Institute, which provides statistical support to 
Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA)), having as a partner the Aarhus University 
(Denmark). The project was initiated in March 2013 and the final report was received in July 
2013.

The combined‑over‑years uniformity (COYU) method is a statistical procedure for assessing 
the uniformity of candidate varieties entered for DUS tests. It is widely used, being applicable 
to measured characteristics typically, but not exclusively, for cross‑pollinated varieties.

The project developed and tested an alternative method of adjustment for COYU, based on 
natural cubic splines. This was described in a paper presented to the International Union for 
the  Protection  of  New  Varieties  of  Plants  (UPOV)  Technical  Working  Party  on  Automation 
and Computer Programs (TWC) (TWC/31/15 Corr.) and was presented at the TWC meeting in 
Seoul, 2013. The proposed new methodology for COYU was compared to the current one by 
simulation under several scenarios. It was found to have much‑reduced bias. It is expected 
that the achievements will enable the use of more typical significance levels, such as 1 % or 
5 %, than for the current formulation.

As  a  follow‑up  United  Kingdom  experts  will  develop  software  in  Fortran  that  can  be 
incorporated  into  the  widely  used  DUST  package.  A  demonstration  version  of  the  DUST 
software using the proposed COYU method will be made at the 32nd session of the TWC in 
2014. The TWC agreed that the probability levels to be used in the proposed COYU method 
should be discussed on the basis of the experience of UPOV members in using the proposed 
method.  The  TWC  also  agreed  that  a  circular  should  be  prepared  by  an  expert  from  the 
United Kingdom and issued by the UPOV office to the Technical Committee representatives, 
in order to investigate which members of the Union used the current COYU method and in 
which software it was used. A presentation of the outcome of the project will be made in 
2014 in the UPOV Technical Committee.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

23

R & D project on Helleborus, Netherlands

‘Modification of the cultivation scheme and the plant material requirements for Helleborus’

The CPVO formally approved in March 2013 the co‑financing of the R & D project ‘Modification 
of the cultivation scheme and the plant material requirements for Helleborus’. The project 
was initiated by the CPVO and includes another project partner, Naktuinbouw. The project 
was launched in March 2013 and the final report is expected in the second half of 2014.

The  aim  of  this  project  is  to  investigate  the  suitability  of  an  alternative  to  the  current 
cultivation scheme, namely to move to a cultivation in pots with delivery in April.

Currently,  the  DUS  testing  of  Helleborus  varieties  in  the  framework  of  an  application  for 
CPVRs is centralised at Naktuinbouw, where plants are cultivated outdoors in open ground. 
This cultivation scheme seems not to be optimal as, in the past, the weak drainage of the 
soil caused some damage, and some cold winters or bad weather conditions could damage 
the candidate varieties and the reference collection. Moreover, the commercial standard 
way of production seems to be more suitable for pot culture rather than ground cultivation. 
The stakeholders have expressed a wish to move to cultivation in pots with delivery in April.

If  the  new  cultivation  scheme  proves  to  be  adequate,  the  reference  collection  will  be 
transferred from outdoors to pots in cold frames. This should avoid too many losses within 
the collection. Moreover, with this new cultivation, it should become more certain in the 
future that the DUS technical examination can be concluded within 1 year.

7.2. 

Projects underway in 2013

‘Harmonisation of vegetable disease resistances 2’

This project, initiated in 2012, is coordinated by GEVES (France), with project partners from 
the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Hungary, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and 
the European Seed Association (ESA). This project is a follow‑up to the earlier ‘Harmonisation 
of vegetable disease resistances’, completed in 2008, although the new project deals with 

24

Bremia disease resistance tests for numerous lettuce 
varieties

seven disease resistances in pepper, pea and lettuce. A first meeting was organised by GEVES, 
the project coordinator, at the end of June 2012, in order to obtain consensual agreement 
amongst the project partners on the schedule of work to be done, and the races/isolates 
and example varieties which would be utilised. The work done in the second half of 2012 
was concentrated on the description and comparison of the existing tests for these disease 
resistances. A second meeting of the group took place in May 2013 and the Office received 
the first interim report in August 2013. The project is expected to be concluded in 2015.

‘Impact analysis of endophytes on the phenotype of varieties of Lolium perenne and 

Festuca arundinacea’

This  project,  initiated  in  January  2013,  is  coordinated  by  the  CPVO  and  the  Food  and 
Environment Research Agency (FERA) (United Kingdom), with the following project partners: 
Bundessortenamt  (Germany),  ESA  (breeding  companies:  DLF  Trifolium  and  Barenbrug) 
and  GEVES  (France).  The  project  aims  at  clarifying  the  possible  impact  that  the  presence 
of endophytes in varieties of Lolium perenne (Lp) and Festuca arundinacea (Fa) might have 
on the phenotype, and thus on the expression of the characteristics observed during the 
DUS tests and eventual consequences in terms of quality requirements for material to be 
submitted for that purpose. The project provides for the assessment of four varieties from 
each species, with two stages of endophyte infections (0 % and 100 % endophytes). These 
varieties  will  be  integrated  into  regular  DUS  tests  during  two  growing  cycles  using  the 
relevant CPVO technical protocol. The final report is expected at the end of 2015.

‘Reducing the number of obligatory observation periods in DUS testing for candidate 

varieties in the fruit sector’

This  project 
is  coordinated  by  the  CPVO,  with  the  following  project  partners: 
Bundessortenamt (Germany), Coboru (Poland), the Organisation of Breeders of Asexually 
Reproduced  Ornamental  and  Fruit  Plants  (Ciopora),  Centro  di  ricerca  per  la  frutticoltura 
(CRA‑FRU) (Italy), Oficina Española de Variedades Vegetales (OEVV) (Spain), GEVES (France), 
NÉBIH  (Hungary),  the  Central  institute  for  supervising  and  testing  in  agriculture  —  the 
National plant variety office (NPVO) (Czech Republic) and Plantum.

The project was initiated in the beginning of 2013 and the final report with the conclusions 
is expected at the beginning of 2014. The costs of DUS testing for candidate fruit varieties 
are relatively high compared to varieties in other crop sectors. This fact has been subject 
of discussions in several circles over the recent years. The CPVO has committed itself to 
investigating how this cost could be reduced. The issue was discussed in the group with 
fruit  experts  in  2009.  Several  options  for  a  possible  cost  reduction,  which  need  further 
investigation,  have  been  identified.  One  of  them  was  a  reduction  in  the  number  of 
obligatory DUS cycles for candidate varieties.

The  aim  of  the  project  is:  (i)  to  determine  whether  there  is  indeed  technical  justification 
of  two  satisfactory  crops  of  fruit  in  order  to  make  a  conclusion  on  DUS;  and  (ii)  to  draw 
up  a  subsequent  reliable  variety  description.  Five  species  are  considered  in  the  scope  of 

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

25

the  project:  peach,  strawberry,  apple,  raspberry  and  grapevine.  Varieties  where  the  CPVO 
technical protocol has been implemented and which have been registered (national listings, 
national plant variety rights, CPVRs) in the past 5 years have been considered. The results 
were received at the end of summer 2013 and a first discussion took place during the fruit 
expert meeting in October 2013. Most of the participants agreed that reducing the number 
of observation years would lead to a less reliable variety description. Some of them pointed 
out  that  a  description  based  on  the  second  fruiting  period  would  be  sufficiently  reliable 
and there would be no need to have 2 years of observation. In a few situations, a reduction 
in the number of years of observation could also affect the assessment of distinctness or 
uniformity. The Office will draft a conclusion to the project and propose a follow‑up in 2014.

7.3. 

Follow‑up of finalised R & D projects

‘European collection of rose varieties’

As  a  follow‑up  to  the  project,  after  consultation  with  rose  breeders  and  professional 
organisations,  it  was  decided  to  keep  a  DNA  sample  from  the  original  plant  material 
submitted  for  each  technical  examination,  on  a  compulsory  basis.  One  possible  use  of 
such a sample could be, in cases where there are doubts, to verify (as far as the applicable 
techniques allow) the identity of the material ordered in order to be grown as a reference 
in  a  DUS  test,  comparing  the  DNA  fingerprint  of  the  material  received  as  a  reference 
variety with the fingerprint of the DNA stored for that same variety. This sample could also 
be used in relation to the enforcement of rights at the request of the breeder. In a future 
context, this sample could be used in the management of the reference collection.

A  procedure  setting  out  the  details  of  the  DNA  sampling  as  part  of  the  technical 
examination has been defined, on the basis of which a call for tenders to select a laboratory 
was launched. In 2011, Naktuinbouw was entrusted for a period of 4 years. The sampling 
started during the course of the 2011 DUS trial.

Ring test on potato, United Kingdom

Ring test on potato, United Kingdom

26

A  DNA  sample  from  the  original  plant  material  submitted  for  each  rose’s  technical 
examination  is  kept  on  a  compulsory  basis,  following  the  adopted  procedure.  The 
leaves  are  collected  in  the  different  entrusted  examination  offices  (Bundessortenamt, 
Naktuinbouw  and  NIAB)  and  sent  to  the  entrusted  laboratory  (Naktuinbouw).  DNA 
extractions  and  storage  take  place  in  this  laboratory.  Since  the  start  of  the  project,  the 
DNA of 525 candidate varieties tested in 2011, 2012 and 2013 have been extracted and 
stored. The pilot project will be reviewed at the end of 2014.

The cost of the sampling and the extraction have so far been supported by the Office.

‘Management of peach tree reference collections’

This  collaborative  3‑year  project  among  the  CPVO’s  entrusted  examination  offices  and 
their technically qualified bodies for Prunus persica — GEVES and the Institut national de 
la recherche agronomique (INRA) (France), the national food chain safety office (OMMI) 
(Hungary), CRA‑FRU (Italy) and the Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA) 
and the Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA) (Spain) — 
was  concluded  in  summer  2011.  The  project  partners  analysed  a  total  of  510  peach 
varieties in their reference collections (including 12 common to all of them) under the 
following four themes: (i) compilation of morphological data; (ii) creation of standardised 
digital data; (iii) generation of molecular data; (iv) creation of a phenotypic and molecular 
variety database.

The main conclusions of the final report were presented to the CPVO in October 2011. The 
project coordinator (GEVES) outlined that the information exchanged between the project 
partners  had  been  invaluable  in  drawing  up  better  phenotypic  descriptions  of  peach 
varieties and structuring the reference collections according to the genetic background 
of  the  constituent  varieties.  A  database  for  the  storage  and  management  of  all  these 
data (GEMMA) was created by GEVES, and it was proposed that the full updating of this 
database be continued in the future by all the project partners via the GEMMA framework, 
in order to have a more efficient selection of comparison varieties for peach DUS testing.

The CPVO proposed a set of concrete follow‑up measures which the project coordinator 
should  consider  with  the  other  project  partners,  with  the  aim  of  improving  the 
management of the reference collections in the four entrusted examination offices, and 
the overall efficiency of DUS testing in peach.

A  first  step  in  achieving  this  will  be  the  signature  of  the  contract  agreement  between 
GEVES and the project partners regulating the contribution and access of each partner to 
the GEMMA database.

‘Construction of an integrated microsatellite and key morphological characteristic 

database of potato varieties in the EU common catalogue (CC)’

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

27

This project started in April 2006. The final report was received in spring 2008. The partners 
involved  are  Bundessortenamt  (Germany),  Coboru  (Poland),  Naktuinbouw  (Netherlands) 
and  SASA  (United  Kingdom).  The  project  delivered  a  database  including  marker  profiles 
of potato varieties, key morphological characteristics and a photo library with light sprout 
pictures. The aim is to rapidly identify plant material of a vegetatively propagated crop where 
reference  material  has  to  be  submitted  every  year  and  to  ease  the  management  of  the 
reference collection. At the request of the breeders’ association, the ESA, the possible use 
of molecular means for variety identification for enforcement purposes has been taken into 
account. Several conference calls were held in 2010 and 2011 with the project partners and 
the ESA in order to agree upon the follow‑up of the project results and their implementation 
in the DUS test. A ring test was organised in 2012 involving all nine entrusted examination 
offices. The outcome of the ring test was discussed in a meeting organised in June 2013 in 
Edinburgh. Emphasis was placed on the harmonisation of the variety descriptions from the 
different examination offices. A procedure for the sending of tubers of candidate varieties 
to a laboratory so that their DNA can be extracted and profiled for the management of the 
reference  collection  has  been  agreed.  The  CPVO  has  prepared  a  follow‑up  project,  with 
a duration of 2 years (2014–15), which involves the nine entrusted examination offices for 
potato and the ESA. The main objectives of this follow‑up project are as follows.

•	 To organise a ring test of light sprout characteristics and picture taking.
•	 To set up a common calibration book and revision of potato CPVO‑TP.
•	 A call for tenders for two labs, and lab work definition and subsequent entrustment.
•	 To  set  up  an  agreement  between  the  CPVO,  labs,  examination  offices  and  the  ESA 

covering molecular data.

•	 To  set  up  an  agreement  between  CPVO,  GEVES,  examination  offices  and  the  ESA 
concerning the GEMMA database and the procedure for contribution and maintenance 
of the GEMMA database.

28

8.

BUDGET

8.1.  Overview — out‑turn

The  budget  out‑turn  for  2013  showed  a  significant  and  forecast  decrease  on  previous 
years,  due  mainly  to  an  increase  of  expenses  in  operational  expenditure.  Revenue  was 
slightly higher than in previous years, due to a higher number of applications combined 
with the decrease in application and annual fees.

Net out‑turn for the year

Budgetary revenue (a)

Budgetary expenses (b)

Budgetary out‑turn (c) = (a) – (b)

Non-budgetary receipts (d) 

Net out‑turn for the budgetary year 2013 (e) = (c) + (d)

(million EUR)

13.05

12.75

0.30

0.04

0.34

The  net  out‑turn  for  the  year  was  slightly  over  EUR  0.34  million,  compared  to 
EUR 1.55 million for the previous year. This significant fall is fully in line with the CPVO 
policy of reducing the accumulated free reserve.

8.2.  Revenue

The  Office’s  revenue  mainly  comprises  various  fees  paid  by  applicants  for,  and  holders 
of,  CPVRs  and  revenue  from  interest  on  bank  accounts.  The  total  revenue  collected  in 
2013 was EUR 13.06 million.

Fees

Bank interest

Other revenue

Total revenue

Variation (%)

2013 

2012 

(million EUR)

(million EUR)

2.30

– 59.37

– 95.00

– 0.68

12.92

0.13

0.01

13.06

12.63

0.32

0.20

13.15

The total fees received in 2013 amounted to EUR 12.92 million, representing an increase 
of  2.30  %  in  comparison  with  the  previous  year.  Interest  income  is  recorded  for  the 
budgetary accounts based on the date of actual receipt of the interest. There were no 
grants received in the year in the context of the multi‑beneficiary programme compared 
to 2012 (grant received in 2012 from the European Commission: EUR 200 000).

8.3. 

Expenditure

In 2013 the total amount of recorded expenditure and commitments carried over was 
EUR 12.76 million, compared with EUR 11.74 million in 2012.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • BUDGET

29

Variation (%)

2013 

2012 

(million EUR)

(million EUR)

Staff expenditure

Administrative expenditure

Operational expenditure

Total expenditure

4.50

10.10

12.91

8.69

5.81

1.09

5.86

12.76

5.56

0.99

5.19

11.74

The salary grid for staff of the Office, being governed by the levels set by the European 
Council, is also subject to changes in line with inflation and career progression and this 
is  reflected  in  the  modest  increase  (4.5  %).  The  Court  case  to  decide  on  the  matter  of 
back‑dated salary increases, which is being contested between the European Commission 
and the Council, was inconclusive at year‑end.

Administrative  expenditure 
development.

increases  are  mainly  due  to  higher  spending  on 

IT 

Operational expenditure, which consists mainly of remuneration for examination offices, 
increased as the number of applications increased by 15 % compared to 2012.

8.4.  Conclusion

The net result in 2013 is significantly lower than the previous year. The reduced application 
and  annual  fees,  which  came  into  force  at  the  beginning  of  2013,  helped  bring  the 
out‑turn to a lower level than in 2012, fully in line with the CPVO’s medium‑term policy of 
lowering its free reserve.

30

9.

DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — 
REGULATORY

9.1. 

Evaluation of the CPVR system

In 2010 the European Commission launched an evaluation of the CPVR acquis to assess 
how well it has met its original objectives, as well as its current strengths and weaknesses. 
The  outcome  was  that  ‘The  CPVR  acquis  functions  well  and  has  met  its  objectives. 
Stakeholders are generally content with the system.’ However, some options have been 
proposed  to  resolve  deficiencies  identified  in  the  system.  In  order  to  give  a  follow‑up 
to  those  recommendations  the  CPVO  has  decided  to  take  some  initiatives,  like  the 
reactivation  of  the  ad  hoc  Legislative  Working  Group  and  the  initiation  of  a  discussion 
about the criteria to accept proposals for variety denominations. The ad hoc Legislative 
Working Group commenced its activities in 2012 with the aim of finding possible solutions 
regarding areas where there is common support for changes and, where possible, provide 
concrete answers to questions and comments of a legal nature which have been raised 
by various stakeholders in the framework of the evaluation of the CPVR system in the EU.

The ad hoc Legislative Working Group is chaired by the CPVO and is composed of mainly 
legal experts from national authorities, representatives from the European Commission and 
lawyers  active  in  breeders’  organisations.  The  final  conclusions  of  the  ad  hoc  Legislative 
Working Group are expected to be presented by the end of 2014.

9.2. 

EU legislation on plant reproductive material

The CPVO is following the discussions held at the Council of the European Union among 
representatives of the Member States concerning the revision and adoption of the new EU 
legislation on plant reproductive material (PRM), which might give new responsibilities to 
the CPVO in that domain. The CPVO is reflecting on the practical consequences that such 
new tasks will have for it, in particular vis‑à‑vis the managing of the Union Plant Variety 
Register,  the  testing  of  variety  denominations  and  the  enhanced  scope  of  activities  of 
the quality audit service. In connection with this, in December 2013, the president of the 
CPVO was invited to give a presentation on the activities of the CPVO to the Committee 
on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament.

9.3. 

Fees

There  have  been  a  number  of  changes  over  the  past  years  in  the  fee  structure  of  the 
CPVO,  with  reductions  in  the  annual  fee  and  the  application  fee.  In  2013,  the  CPVO 
launched a comprehensive cost calculation exercise in order to update the real costs for 
examination offices of conducting DUS examinations.

On  the  basis  of  the  results  of  the  cost  calculation  exercise,  the  CPVO  will  analyse  the 
financial impact on breeders of a potential move to 100 % cost recovery. In parallel the 
CPVO will propose further changes to the annual fee and the application fee with a view 
to ensuring that the free reserve of the Office is reduced over the medium term.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — REGULATORY

31

The analysis and proposals will be presented to the Administrative Council in the spring 
2014 meeting with a view to making the necessary changes to the fees regulation by the 
end of 2014.

9.4. 

Enforcement

On  30  May  2013,  the  CPVO,  in  cooperation  with  the  Italian  Ministry  of  Economic 
Development,  the  Italian  Patent  and  Trademark  Office  and  the  breeders’  organisations 
(Ciopora,  ESA  and  Plantum),  organized  a  seminar  on  the  enforcement  of  plant  variety 
rights.  This  seminar  aimed  at  sharing  information  and  experience  relating  to  the 
enforcement of plant variety rights in Italy and possibly in other EU Member States. More 
than 130 persons from more than 15 countries participated in the event which was held 
at the premises of the Chamber of Commerce in Rome. Different stakeholders, including 
authorities, indicated that they will take on board the experiences shared in the seminar 
in  coming  dialogues,  dialogues  that  the  CPVO  would  support.  All  presentations  made 
during the seminar are published on the website of the Office. 

Seminars on the enforcement of plant variety rights organized by the CPVO have always 
encountered  a  great  success  and  are  highly  appreciated  by  participants.  Before  the 
Rome seminar in 2013, the Office organised seminars on enforcement in Brussels (2005), 
Warsaw (2006), Madrid (2007), Sofia and Bucharest (2008), Athens (2010) and Hamburg 
(25  May  2011).  In  October  2013,  the  CPVO  Administrative  Council  agreed  to  organise 
a seminar on the enforcement of plant variety rights in Zagreb in June 2014. 

Enforcement seminar, May 2013, Rome, Italy

32

10. DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — 

TECHNICAL

10.1.  Applications for Community plant variety 

protection

In 2013 the Office received 3 297 applications for Community plant variety protection, 
which represents an all‑time record and an increase of 15 % compared to the previous 
year.  Graph  1  shows  the  evolution  of  application  numbers  received  by  the  Office  (all 
figures are based on the date of arrival of the application documents at the Office). It may 
be assumed that the strong increase observed in 2013 is partly due to the decrease at 
the end of 2012, when it was announced that a lowered application fee would become 
applicable as from 2013.

3 297

3 184

2 998 3 007

2 886

2 868

2 768

2 699 2 721 2 751

2 526

2 177 2 205

2 090

1 856 1 907

Graph 1

Evolution of the annual number of 

applications for Community plant 

variety protection (1996–2013)

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 394

1 530

1 000

500

0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Graph 2 represents the shares of the crop sectors in the number of applications received 
in 2013.

Graph 2
Shares of application numbers per 

crop sector in 2013

Ornamental

Agricultural

Vegetable

Fruit

255
8 %

587
18 %

800
24 %

2013

1 655
50 %

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

33

 
 
 
 
Graph 3

Evolution of application numbers 

per crop sector (1995–2013)

Ornamental

Agricultural

Vegetable

Fruit

2 000

1 800

1 600

1 400

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

1995

1996

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Graph 3 shows the evolution of the number of applications per crop sector since 1995. 
In  2013  the  Office  observed  an  increase  in  application  numbers  in  all  crop  sectors: 
agricultural  +  19  applications  (2.4  %),  fruit  +  22  applications  (9.4  %),  ornamental 
+ 249 applications (17.7 %) and vegetable + 139 applications (31 %).

In 2013, 3 484 applicants filed applications for CPVRs. The following table lists for each crop 
sector the 15 most frequent users of the Community system and their respective number 
of applications filed in 2013. These top 15 applicants have a relative share of applications 
ranging  from  96.4  %  (in  2012:  83.9  %)  for  vegetables,  over  59.6  %  (in  2012:  59.7  %)  for 
agricultural  species  and  52.5  %  (in  2012:  57.5  %)  for  fruit  species  to  as  little  as  35.9  % 
(in 2012: 34.9 %) for ornamentals. This range does not only reflect the continuing process 
of concentration in breeding, in particular in the vegetable sector, it also shows that, in 
the case of ornamentals, a great number of ‘small’ breeders are in business and seeking 
protection  for  their  varieties.  However,  also  in  ornamentals,  a  concentration  in  plant 
breeding seems to be taking place. This may be seen as an indication of the investment 
behind each variety relative to the revenues it delivers.

34

 
 
 
 
Agricultural sector

Top 15 applicants

Limagrain Europe SA
KWS Saat AG
RAGT 2n SAS
Adrien Momont et Fils SARL
Monsanto Technology LLC
Deutsche Saatveredelung AG
Soltis SAS
Euralis Semences SAS
DLF-Trifolium A/S
Secobra Recherches SAS
Caussade Semences SA
Böhm Nordkartoffel Agrarproduktion OHG
Maïsadour Semences SA
SESVanderHave NV/SA
Sejet Planteforædling I/S

Total

Country

France
Germany
France
France
United States
Germany
France
France
Denmark
France
France
Germany
France
Belgium
Denmark

Vegetable sector

Top 15 applicants

Monsanto Vegetable IP Management BV
Nunhems BV
Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel BV
Enza Zaden Beheer BV
Syngenta Crop Protection AG
Bejo Zaden BV
Vilmorin SA
De Groot en Slot Allium BV
Gautier Semences SAS
Laboratoire ASL SNC
Nirit Seeds Limited
Clause SA
Emmanuel Emylyanus Iruthayathasan
Monsanto Holland BV
Asparagus Beheer BV

Total

Country

Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Switzerland
Netherlands
France
Netherlands
France
France
Israel
France
Belgium
Netherlands
Netherlands

Number of 
applications in 2013
81
64
64
38
35
34
31
26
22
17
16
13
13
12
11
477

Number of 
applications in 2013
154
102
96
52
41
35
27
14
11
7
7
6
5
5
4
566

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

35

 
Fruit sector

Top 15 applicants

Driscoll Strawberry Associates Inc.
Investigacion y Tecnologia de Uva de 
Mesa (ITUM) S. L.
PSB Produccion Vegetal S. L.
Agro Selections Fruits SAS
Florida Foundation Seed Producers Inc.
Consorzio Italiano Vivaisti (CIV) 
Società Consortile a rl
Fall Creek Farm and Nursery Inc.
Selección Plantas Sevilla S. L.
Star Fruits Diffusion SAS
CostaExchange
Institut de Recerca í Tecnologia 
Agroalimentaries (IRTA)
Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones 
Agrarias (IVIA)
International Fruit Genetics LLC
Agricultural Research & Development 
(ARD) LLC
Agricultural Research Organisation

Country

United States

Spain

Spain
France
United States

Italy

United States
Spain
France
Australia

Spain

Spain

United States

United States

Israel

Total  

Ornamental sector

Number of 
applications in 2013
13

12

12
10
10

9

9
9
9
8

7

7

7

6

6

134

Top 15 applicants

Anthura BV
Dümmen Group GmbH
Terra Nova Nurseries Inc.
Testcentrum voor Siergewassen BV
Poulsen Roser A/S
Fides BV
Nils Klemm
Suphachatwong Innovation Co. Ltd
W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co. KG
Rosen Tantau KG
Dekker Breeding BV
Meilland International SA
Syngenta Crop Protection AG
Florist Holland BV
Vletter & Den Haan Beheer BV

Total  

Country

Netherlands
Germany
United States
Netherlands
Denmark
Netherlands
Germany
Thailand
Germany
Germany
Netherlands
France
Switzerland
Netherlands
Netherlands

Number of 
applications in 2013
110
55
50
38
36
35
35
34
32
31
25
24
24
23
22

595

Applicants from outside the EU must appoint a representative with a registered office or with 
a domicile inside the EU to handle their applications. Sometimes, mother companies located 

36

outside  the  EU  appoint  their  daughter  company  in  the  EU;  this  is  the  case,  for  example, 
for Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta and Sakata. EU applicants do not have such an obligation; 
however,  some  of  them  prefer  to  outsource  the  application  procedure  to  an  external 
agent.  In  2013,  1  346  applications  (42.3  %;  in  2012:  45.6  %)  were  filed  by  150  procedural 
representatives.  The  following  table  lists  the  15  most  active  procedural  representatives 
for 2013, having submitted in total 801 applications.

Name of procedural representative

Country

Royalty Administration International CV
Hortis Holland BV
Deutsche Saatgutgesellschaft mbH. Berlin
Syngenta Seeds BV
Limagrain Europe SA
Ronald Houtman Sortimentsadvies
Monsanto SAS
Plantipp. BV
WürtenbergerKunze
Hans-Gerd Seifert
Limagrain Nederland BV
GPL International A/S
Moerheim New Plant BV
Società Italiana Brevetti SpA
New Variety BV

Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
Netherlands
France
Netherlands
France
Netherlands
Germany
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Netherlands
Italy
Netherlands

Number of applications 
filed in 2013
237
86
79
63
46
41
35
34
34
32
32
25
22
18
17

 Total

801

10.1.1.  Ornamental species

With  50.2  %  of  the  applications  received  in  2013,  ornamentals  continue  to  represent  the 
largest  group  of  applications  filed  for  CPVRs.  As  can  be  seen  in  Graph  3,  the  ornamental 
sector remains the most important in terms of the number of applications each year. While 
in the early days of the Office the share of ornamentals was well above the 60 % mark it is 
now lingering around the 50 % threshold. There may be a number of reasons behind the 
decrease in share: merger of companies, refraining from protecting varieties or protecting 

DUS trials on Phalaenopsis, Netherlands

DUS trials on Matricaria L., France

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

37

only a few varieties of a given series or seeking protection through other systems such as 
patents (where possible) or trademarks. Also, as breeders of ornamental varieties are mostly 
small  or  mid‑size  companies,  the  costs  for  variety  protection  take  a  higher  share  of  the 
budget than for big players.

One particularity of the ornamentals is the great diversity of species. For many of them there 
is a rather low number of applications.

Table  1  shows  the  10  most  important  ornamental  crops  in  terms  of  the  number  of 
applications  received  over  the  last  5  years.  Changes  in  the  importance  of  most  of  these 
crops — with the exception of orchids — seem to be rather accidental. Also in 2013, roses 
and  chrysanthemums  remain  by  far  the  most  important  species.  With  the  exception  of 
Dianthus and Calibrachoa, all major species could reach or top the number of applications 
of the previous year.

Table 1: Number of applications for the 10 most important ornamental species groups from 2009 to 2013, with a total covering 1995–2013

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Total 
(1995–2013)

Species

Rosa L. 

Chrysanthemum L.

Pelargonium L’Her. ex Aiton, 

Calibrachoa Llave & Lex. and Petunia Juss. 

Lilium L.

Gerbera L.

Dianthus L.

Phalaenopsis Blume and x Doritaenopsis hort.

Osteospermum L.

Anthurium andraeanum Linden ex Andre

155

162

49

78

56

63

29

50

28

20

200

175

44

77

55

37

61

85

32

47

239

153

74

58

63

58

30

84

24

29

131

146

45

54

37

36

54

47

24

19

Total

690

813

812

593

231

120

58

48

68

47

34

110

24

44

784

3515

2952

1418

1116

1035

949

814

769

518

507

Table 2: Number of applications received for Mandevilla

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

2

1

0

0

0

2

2

3

5

14

9

12

7

23

29

16

19

144

Another  crop  that  took  a  remarkable  development  was  Mandevilla.  After  the  first 
applications arrived in 1997, application numbers remained low until 2005. As from 2006, 
the Office received a considerable number of applications (see table 2). This trend is taken 
into account by UPOV where a special test guideline for this crop is under preparation.

The  Office  may  base  its  decision  to  grant  CPVRs  on  a  technical  examination  carried 
out  within  the  framework  of  a  previous  application  for  plant  breeders’  rights  in  an  EU 
Member State. Such a takeover of reports concerns less than 5 % of ornamentals, which is 

38

a considerably lower percentage than for the vegetable or agricultural sectors and is due 
to the absence of any listing requirement before commercialising ornamental varieties.

The  introduction  in  2010  of  the  principle  that  any  competent  examination  office  can  be 
entrusted  for  the  DUS  test  of  any  species  has  resulted  in  a  situation  where,  for  a  number 
of  ornamental  species,  more  than  one  examination  office  is  available  to  undertake  DUS 
examination. Whereas in the past a centralised testing situation existed, the CPVO has now 
to decide at which examination office a certain candidate variety is going to be examined. 
For that reason, the CPVO’s Administrative Council has extended the criteria to be applied by 
the CPVO. Ornamental experts have nevertheless requested a better centralisation of species 
and the Administrative Council gave the mandate to the Office to develop a proposal. A new 
centralisation for crops with low application numbers may be expected in the course of 2014.

10.1.2.  Agricultural species

The  year  2013  showed  a  slight  increase  of  2.4  %  in  the  number  of  applications  but  it 
remains lower than in 2011, when an all‑time high had been reached. In 2013, agricultural 
varieties represented 24 % of all applications. The 800 applications received are still to be 
considered as important in that sector.

The following table shows the number of applications received per year over all agricultural 
species since 2009, as well as the total figure for the years 1995–2013.

All agricultural species

2009

745

2010

725

2011

878

2012

781

2013

800

Total (1995–2013)

11 404

Table 3 shows the number of applications for the 10 most important agricultural species 
for the last 5 years.

Table 3: Number of applications of the 10 most important agricultural species from 2009 to 2013, with a total covering 1995–2013

Species

Zea mays L.

Triticum aestivum L. emend. Fiori et Paol.

Solanum tuberosum L.

Brassica napus L. emend. Metzg.

Hordeum vulgare L. sensu lato

Helianthus annuus L.

Beta vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris var. altissima Döll

Lolium perenne L.

Triticum durum Desf.

Oryza sativa L.

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Total (1995–2013)

221

220

75

86

95

67

46

18

20

18

2

92

63

75

56

66

7

19

14

12

264

115

80

71

60

73

18

30

32

21

215

83

75

107

72

42

17

20

18

20

147

129

77

82

85

67

22

43

15

17

3 510

1 343

1 300

995

981

728

280

269

245

162

Total

648

624

764

669

684

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

39

Graph 4

Evolution in percentage of the 

ratio of technical examinations to 

takeovers of DUS reports in the 

agricultural sector (2007–2013)

Technical examinations

Takeovers

%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

.

9
0
8

.

9
6
8

.

1
9
1

2007

.

1
3
1

2008

.

8
3
8

.

2
6
1

.

5
9
7

.

5
0
2

.

5
9
7

.

5
0
2

.

3
3
8

.

7
6
1

.

6
3
8

.

4
6
1

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

As  in  previous  years,  Zea mays  is  the  most  important  species  in  the  agricultural  sector, 
although  its  number  of  applications  decreased  in  2013,  as  it  had  already  in  2012.  An 
important  increase  is  observed  for  wheat  applications,  while  oilseed  rape  applications 
decrease  significantly.  Potato  applications  remained  stable  at  a  high  level;  barley 
applications increased compared to the previous year.

Given that the large majority of applications refer to species that are covered by the EU 
seed directives, about 85 % of all applications have already undergone a DUS test when 
the CPVR application is filed, or the DUS test is at least ongoing. This allows the Office to 
take over the DUS report from entrusted examination offices, in accordance with Article 27 
of the regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2009), if it constitutes a sufficient 
basis for a decision. If this is not the case, the Office organises a technical examination 
carried out by an entrusted examination office (see Graph 4).

DUS trials on Sorgho, Spain

Cereals

40

 
 
10.1.3.  Vegetable species

The year 2013 was a memorable one for the vegetable sector. It had the highest number of 
applications ever (587), which was in itself a huge 31 % increase on the previous year’s figure. 
As was also the case in other crop sectors, several applicants held back making applications 
at the end of 2012 to profit from the lower application fee from 1 January 2013, although 
large  numbers  of  vegetable  applications  continued  to  be  received  throughout  2013.  The 
vegetable sector now accounts for 18 % of all CPVR applications, whereas in the past it had 
always  accounted  for  about  12  %  of  the  overall  figure.  It  was  also  notable  that  three  out 
of the five main applicants in 2013 came from the vegetable sector, including, for the first 
time ever, the top two places, for Monsanto Vegetable IP Management BV and Nunhems BV 
respectively.

As has been stated earlier in this chapter, there has been a great deal of concentration in 
the vegetable sector in recent years as a consequence of several acquisitions and mergers 
between seed companies. For a time there was a fear that this would lead to a rationalisation 
of  breeding  activities,  leading  to  a  subsequent  reduction  of  new  candidate  vegetable 
varieties  being  put  forward  for  protection.  But  as  2013  has  demonstrated,  the  number 
of commercial varieties for which protection has been applied, and in particular hybrids, 
appears  to  be  encouragingly  healthy.  The  work  of  the  ESA  and  the  Anti‑Infringement 
Bureau  (AIB)  for  vegetable  crops  must  be  complimented  here  since,  thanks  to  their 
support and encouragement, several seed companies have realised that CPVRs provide 
an effective ‘insurance policy’ against possible infringements of their varieties. Not only 
have several of the big seed companies substantially increased their portfolio of protected 
vegetable varieties, but some of the small and medium‑sized companies have also seized 
upon this momentum.

As always, lettuce continues to be the top vegetable species, but 2013 nearly saw first 
place being taken by tomato, with a difference of just six applications between them. The 
progress of tomato in the league table of vegetable crops over the past decade has been 
commendable, so it will be interesting to see if 2014 will see lettuce and tomato swapping 
places.  The  three  next  main  vegetable  species  also  saw  very  strong  growth  in  2013, 

DUS trials on peppers, France

DUS trials on courgette, France

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

41

although figures are still some way below the top two. Overall though, as illustrated by 
Table  4,  there  is  now  a  shift  of  applications  from  field  vegetables  to  greenhouse/salad 
vegetable crops, which probably also reflects consumers’ preferences throughout the EU.

Table 4: Number of applications of the 10 most important vegetable species from 2009 to 2013, with a total covering 1995–2013

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Total (1995–2013)

110

127

118

104

66

14

13

20

40

12

4

9

12

300

Total

40

16

17

37

13

29

6

11

15

72

28

27

38

21

20

12

6

17

71

25

24

33

22

20

16

16

9

311

359

340

467

135

129

10

24

48

44

41

11

16

9

1 618

678

431

366

330

241

223

149

134

124

Aside from the good figures outlined above, 2013 was also a busy year with other matters 
in the vegetable sector within the CPVO. Foremost amongst these were the continuing 
discussions on disease resistance characteristics in CPVO vegetable protocols. In October, 
the Administrative Council of the CPVO decided to maintain the moratorium on any new 
asterisked (obligatory) disease resistance characteristics being added to CPVO protocols. 
Parallel to this, the Office held discussions with breeders, entrusted examination offices 
and other interested parties in relation to this matter, so as to find possible solutions to 
resolve the current deadlock. After the gathering and analysing the various opinions, the 
Office  formulated  the  following  three  proposals,  which  were  presented  at  the  annual 
vegetable experts meeting in the beginning of December.

(i)  Establish  a  running‑in  phase  in  the  adoption  of  asterisked  disease  resistance 

characteristics in CPVO protocols.

(ii)  Possible deletion of the asterisks from the corresponding CPVO protocols.
(iii)  Create  a  two‑tier  system  for  DUS  testing  in  vegetables,  one  for  plant  breeders’ 

rights and the other for national listing.

Species 

Lactuca sativa L.

Solanum lycopersicum L.

Phaseolus vulgaris L.

Pisum sativum L.

Capsicum annuum L.

Cucumis sativus L.

Cucumis melo L.

Cichorium endivia L.

Allium cepa (Cepa group)

Spinacia oleracea L.

42

The  first  proposal  received  widespread  support  during  the meeting,  whilst  the  second 
one required further investigation. The third option was discarded by most participants. 
The CPVO will therefore analyse the first two options in greater detail during the course 
of 2014, whilst also seeking the assistance of its stakeholders concerned by the matter.

10.1.4.  Fruit species

The  number  of  fruit  CPVR  applications  in  2013  increased  to  255.  Over  75  %  of  the 
applications were made for varieties of 10 crops. The top three crops in 2013 were peach, 
strawberry and grapevine. A significant decrease compared to previous years was noted 
for apple applications.

Discussions with the stakeholders in the fruit sector continued in 2013 with regard to ways 
to optimise DUS testing for this sector. The results were presented of the R & D project, 
carried out by the entrusted examination offices for a set of species, on the differences in 
results between the first satisfactory fruiting period and the second satisfactory fruiting for 
varieties that have completed DUS testing in recent years. It was established that reducing 
the number of observation years would lead to a less reliable variety description. It was 
questionable, though, whether this would affect the reliability of the title being granted. 
The issue will be further investigated in 2014.

Table 5: Number of applications of the 10 most important fruit species from 2009 to 2013, with a total covering 1995–2013

Species 

Prunus persica (L.) Batsch

Fragaria x ananassa Duchesne ex Rozier

Malus domestica Borkh.

Prunus armeniaca L.

Vitis L.

Rubus idaeus L.

Vaccinium L.

Prunus salicina Lindl.

Prunus avium (L.) L.

Rubus subg. Eubatus sect. Moriferi & Ursini

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Total (1995–2013)

64

18

30

8

16

6

0

2

3

4

68

25

19

7

15

5

4

6

13

1

54

35

17

7

15

9

8

3

1

2

46

31

27

27

10

22

23

3

7

5

Total

151

163

151

201

43

39

15

11

34

13

19

8

4

10

196

725

456

399

221

171

126

101

99

96

35

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

43

DUS trials on Cucumis melo L., France

DUS trials on Cucumis melo L., France

The  issue  of  reference  varieties  was  discussed  as  being  of  particular  importance  for 
candidate mutation varieties where, in some cases, it seems necessary to have reference 
varieties  of  the  same  age  and  the  same  rootstock.  Other  possibilities  were  considered, 
such as providing further technical information, a DNA analysis or even providing a fruit 
sample in advance of submitting the plant material in order to avoid having an imprecise 
DUS trial and subsequent delays when it was discovered that the most similar comparison 
variety was not planted at the outset of the examination.

In the course of the year, further harmonisation among the entrusted examination offices 
was  achieved  as  regards  the  plant  material  submission  requirements  for  some  crops, 
including grapevine.

10.1.5.  Origin of the applications

Since the creation of the CPVO, applications have been received from over 50 countries. 
Nearly every year, more than one third of all applications received have originated from 
the Netherlands, underpinning the important role of that country in the breeding sector. 
The Netherlands is followed, quite some distance behind, by France, Germany and the 
United States. In 2013 only minor fluctuations were observed in the origin of applications. 
The table below gives an overview of the number of applications received from different 
European countries in 2013.

44

Table 6: The EU Member States from which CPVR applications were filed in 2013

Country of main applicant

Netherlands
France
Germany
Denmark
Italy
United Kingdom
Spain
Belgium
Poland
Austria
Sweden
Hungary
Czech Republic
Ireland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Finland
Latvia

Number of applications received in 2013
1226
509
440
152
102
91
90
52
34
14
13
10
8
7
4
3
2
2

Table 7 shows the application numbers for the 10 most important countries outside the EU.

Table 7: The non-EU countries from which CPVR applications were filed in 2013

Country of main applicant

United States
Switzerland
Japan
Australia
Israel
Thailand
Republic of China, Taiwan
New Zealand
China 
Argentina
South Africa
Brazil
Chile
Canada
Monaco
French Polynesia

Number of applications received in 2013
198
86
58
46
40
38
19
16
13
9
8
2
2
1
1
1

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

45

10.2.  Grants of protection

In 2013 the Office granted 2 706 titles for Community protection, which represents the 
highest  number  ever  granted  by  the  CPVO  within  a  calendar  year.  A  detailed  list  of  all 
varieties under protection (as of 31 December 2013) is published on the CPVO website, in 
the separate annex to this annual report.

By the end of 2013 there were 21 576 CPVRs in force. Graph 5 shows the number of titles 
granted  for  each  year  from  1996 to 2013  and  illustrates  the  continuous  increase  in  the 
number of varieties under protection within the Community system.

The  development  in  the  number  of  CPVRs  in  force  must  be  seen  in  conjunction  with 
the  number  of  rights  surrendered  (Graph  6).  The  number  of  rights  granted  still  greatly 
outweighs the number of surrenders. As older varieties are replaced by newer ones, the 

Graph 5

Community plant variety rights 

granted and rights remaining in 

force at the end of each year from 

25 000

20 000

those granted per year (1996–2013)

15 000

Titles granted

Rights in force at the end of each year

10 000

5 000

1 462

5 867

4 976

3 702

2 390

1 491

1 548

1 370

1 518

1 458

1 009

0

21 576

20 362

18 899

17 612

16 785

15 591

14 589

12 921

11 513

10 233

8 897

7 836

6 838

1 701

1 867

2 177

2 178

2 289

2 616

2 209

2 596

2 303

2 585

2 640

2 706

Graph 6

Number of surrenders of Community 

plant variety rights (1996–2013)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 2012 2013

1 600

1 400

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

77

0

4

273

178

1 401

1 396

1 335

1 268

1 183

1 122

884

845

827

907

761

613

545

474

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 2012 2013

46

 
 
number of surrenders is expected to approach more closely the number of applications. 
The regular increase in the number of surrenders is therefore not a surprise. After having 
seen an important drop in surrenders in 2011 and 2012, the expected trend of increasing 
numbers of surrenders was observed in 2013.

Graph 7 shows the number of rights granted in the years 1996 to 2013 and those still in 
force on 31 December 2013. A large number of rights are surrendered within a few years. 
The CPVR system is still too young to say how many varieties will actually enjoy their full 
term of protection of 25 or 30 years. However, figures suggest that it will be a relatively 
small percentage of all the varieties once protected. This also suggests that the current 
period  of  protection  might  generally  be  rather  well  adapted  to  the  needs  of  breeders. 
This does not preclude the idea that, for some individual species, crop‑specific situations 
might exist.

Graph 7

Number of rights granted each 

year from 1996 to 2013 and 

those remaining in force on 

31 December 2013 from those 

granted per year

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 462

1 548

1 491

1 518

1 370

1 867

1 701

Number of rights granted

Number of rights remaining in force

1 000

1 009

500

462

347

417

429

292

0

1 000

773

628

551

2 616

2 596

2 585

2 640

2 706

2 660

2 477

2 289

2 177

2 178

2 209

2 303

2 311

1 949

1 868

1 558

1 484

1 278

1 122

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 2012 2013

At the end of 2013, of the 36 265 rights granted in total, 21 576 (59.5 %) were still active. 
Table 8 illustrates that fruit varieties are generally kept protected for a longer period and 
that, within each crop sector, the situation varies from species to species. There might be 
a number of reasons for this phenomenon, such as a change in consumer preferences, 
breeding  trends,  differences  in  intensity  of  breeding  activities,  the  time  and  expense 
required to develop new varieties or — as it may be assumed for Phalaenopsis — their 
rather recent boom in plant breeding.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

47

 
 
Table 8: Percentage of granted rights that were still in force on 31 December 2013

Crop sector

Agricultural

Vegetable

Ornamental

Fruit

Species

Proportion %

Festuca rubra L.

Solanum tuberosum L.

Triticum aestivum L. emend. Fiori et Paol.

Zea mays L.

Hordeum vulgare L. sensu lato

Daucus carota L.

Capsicum annuum L.

Solanum Lycopersicum L.

Lactuca sativa L.

Cichorium endivia L.

Phalaenopsis Blume & Doritaenopsis hort.

Clematis L.

Rosa L.

Chrysanthemum L.

Gerbera L.

Prunus avium (L.) L.

Malus domestica Borkh.

Prunus domestica L.

Prunus persica (L.) Batsch

Fragaria × ananassa Duch.

62

88

69

62

57

56

69

88

81

78

61

54

55

89

72

52

51

26

80

91

82

80

78

69

10.3.  Technical examinations

In  2013  the  CPVO  initiated  2  086  technical  examinations,  299  more  than  in  2012.  The 
increase is of course linked to an increasing number of applications. For vegetable and 
agricultural crops, a large number of technical examinations have already been carried 
out under the framework of the national listing procedure. If such a technical examination 
has been carried out by an entrusted examination office, the CPVO can base its decision 
to grant CPVRs on a technical examination which has been carried out in the framework 
of a national application.

48

 
10.3.1.  Sales of reports

National authorities from all over the world regularly base their decisions on applications 
for  plant  variety  rights  on  technical  examinations  carried  out  on  behalf  of  the  CPVO 
(international cooperation, takeover of reports). Graph 8 illustrates the number of reports 
the Office has made available to national authorities.

Graph 8

Evolution of the number of DUS 

testing reports made available to 

other plant variety rights authorities 

(1998–2013)

600

500

400

300

200

100

81

71

69

0

221

226

171

124

483

427

433

393

380

379

367

341

321

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 2012 2013

By the end of 2013 the Office had sold 4 488 technical reports to 52 countries. During that 
year,  South  America  continued  to  be  the  region  from  which  most  requests  emanated 
(Table  9).  In  general  most  requests  concern  ornamental  varieties.  In  2013  the  Office 
received 695 requests, which is the second best figure after the record year 2009, with 
728 requests received.

The Office has set up a flexible approach in respect of the agreed UPOV fee for making 
reports  available.  Requesting  countries  can  pay  this  fee  directly  to  the  CPVO,  but  they 
can also opt for the alternative, according to which the Office sends the invoice to the 
breeder. The report is always provided to the national authorities.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

49

Table 9: The 10 countries that have bought the most DUS technical reports from the 

CPVO (1998–2013)

Country

Israel

Brazil

Ecuador

Colombia

Switzerland

Canada

Kenya

Norway

New Zealand

France

Number of reports bought

546

475

423

414

336

251

248

240

203

199

10.3.2.  Relations with examination offices

Seventeenth annual meeting with the examination offices

10.3.2.1. 
In  December  2013  the  CPVO  held  its  17th  annual  meeting  with  its  examination  offices, 
which is also attended by representatives from the European Commission, the UPOV office 
and the breeders’ organisations — Ciopora, the ESA and Plantum. The main subjects of 
discussion were:

•	 time limits for examination offices to submit interim reports;
•	 the centralisation of DUS testing of ornamental species with low application numbers 

(so‑called small species);

•	 the duties and responsibilities of a technical liaison officer (see also Section 10.4);
•	 the Office’s feedback to examination offices when monitoring the growing trials;
•	 the use and user‑friendliness of the database in which the discussion documents of the 

annual meetings with the examination offices are stored;

•	 the Variety Finder database and the cooperation in variety denomination testing;
•	 various legal matters, such as aspects on the ‘one key, several doors’ principle, according 
to which one DUS examination would be sufficient for the official variety listing as well 
as for the granting of plant variety rights, the public access of data held by examination 
offices,  the  status  of  plant  material  submitted  for  DUS  testing  and  reporting  on  cases 
decided by the Court of Justice.

Furthermore, the participants were informed on the state of play of R & D projects and of 
IT projects such as the electronic exchange of documents with examination offices and 
the pilot project of sharing the online application system.

10.3.2.2.  Preparation of CPVO protocols
In 2013, experts from the Member States’ examination offices were invited to participate 
in  drawing  up  or  revising  technical  protocols  for  DUS  testing,  which  either  were 

50

subsequently approved by the Administrative Council or can be expected to be approved 
in 2014. The following meetings were held.

•	 Agricultural experts: in 2013, no technical protocols were adopted. The discussion on 

protocols continued for the species barley, durum wheat and linseed/flax.

•	 Fruit experts: in 2013, no technical protocols were adopted. The discussion on protocols 
continued for grapefruit/pummelo, raspberry and pomegranate. These are all expected 
to be approved in March 2014.

•	 Vegetable experts: the approval in 2013 of the revision of the technical protocols for spinach, 
radish/black  radish,  globe  artichoke  and  parsnip,  and  partial  revision  of  the  protocol  for 
tomato. Discussion at the end of 2013 on the creation of a new protocol for tomato rootstocks, 
on the revision of the endive and watermelon protocols and on the partial revision of the 
vegetable marrow/squash protocol. These are all expected to be approved in March 2014.
•	 Ornamentals experts: the technical protocol for Calibrachoa was revised. The adoption 
of newly drawn‑up technical protocols for Agapanthus, Bougainvillea, Dianella, Hebe, 
Hibiscus syriacus and Lobelia, as well as the revised technical protocols of Osteospermum 
and Phalaenopsis, is expected for March 2014.

Crop experts’ meetings

10.3.2.3. 
Two meetings with agricultural experts were held in 2013. The first was held in the United 
Kingdom (Scotland) in order to visit the ring test of potatoes which was conducted by 
nine entrusted examination offices during 2013.

The second meeting took place in October and prepared the revisions of the technical 
protocols for barley, durum wheat and linseed/flax.

Further  subjects  of  continued  discussion  were  the  questions  of  how  to  consider  the 
segregation of characteristics of three‑way hybrids in the technical protocol for barley and 
the uniformity standard to be used for male sterile parental crosses in three‑way hybrids. 
The  discussion  continued  also  for  spring  barley  varieties  where  it  is  difficult  to  establish 
distinctness; examination offices shared their experience on new characteristics which could 
help to overcome this problem.

Vegetable experts meeting, December 2013, Angers

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

51

The discussion was continued, from 2011, as regards the testing of parental lines in oilseed 
rape when the subject of the application is a hybrid variety. It was agreed that, for hybrid 
varieties, according to the technical protocol, parental lines must be tested in the same way 
as any other variety, however, in case breeders have difficulties in providing the requested 
amount of seed for certain parent lines, they might be exempted from examination.

The experts’ group got a short presentation summarising the actual state of play of all 
ongoing R & D projects.

A meeting of fruit experts was held in October to discuss new and revised TPs in the fruit sector; 
further harmonisation of requirements for acceptance of plant material; the feasibility of the 
reduction  in  duration/costs  of  fruit  technical  examinations;  preparation  of  the  apple  open 
day; and a follow‑up of the R & D project ‘Management of peach tree reference collections’.

A meeting of vegetable experts was held in December to discuss the protocols mentioned 
previously; working rules on DUS testing of vegetable varieties in two separate locations; the 
ongoing subject of disease resistance testing issues (see Section 10.1.3 for further details); 
greater cooperation between entrusted examination offices; vegetable species covered by 
EU seed directives but without a CPVO protocol; and the agreement between experts to 
launch the proposal for a new 1‑year‑long collaborative R & D project entitled ‘Effect seed 
priming  on  vegetable  DUS  tests’,  which  will  be  coordinated  by  the  CPVO  and  which  will 
investigate tomato rootstock and aubergine as the pilot species.

10.3.2.4.  New species
In 2013 the Administrative Council of the CPVO entrusted examination offices for a number 
of botanical taxa resulting from the so‑called new species inventories (61 different taxa). 
The  following  table  states  the  taxa  for  which  new  examination  offices  were  entrusted 
in 2013 to conduct the technical examination (55 taxa). Graph 9 shows the evolution of 

1 767

1 670

1 583

1 490

1 420

1 375

1 309

1 210

1 120

1 017

884

1 800

1 600

1 400

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

753

684

580

500

418

344

292

239

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Graph 9

Evolution of the number of botanical 

taxa for which the CPVO received 

applications (1995–2013)

52

the number of taxa for which the Office has received applications for Community plant 
variety protection.

At the end of 2013 the CPVO started a project to improve the procedure by computerisation. 
The purpose is to make the whole process more efficient and more transparent in order 
to save work, but also to give the possibility for all examination offices to be aware of the 
species which the other examination offices may be interested in.

Table 10: List of new species entrusted to examination offices in 2013

Botanical taxon
Actaea racemosa L. (syn. Cimicifuga racemosa (L.) Nutt.) x A. simplex (DC.) Wormsk. 
ex Prantl (syn. Cimicifuga simplex (DC.) Wormsk. ex Turcz.)

Adenophora pereskiifolia (Fisch.) Fisch. ex G. Don (syn. Adenophora latifolia Fisch.)

Agave attenuata Salm-Dyck

Arabis alpina L. subsp. caucasica (Willd.) Briq. (syn. Arabis caucasica Willd.)

Arthropodium candidum Raoul

Astroloba spiralis (L.) Uitewaal (syn. Haworthia spiralis (L.) Duval; Haworthia 
pentagona (Aiton) Haw.)

Carex phyllocephala T. Koyama

Clematis cadmia Buch.-Ham. ex Hook. f. & Thomson

Clematis courtoisii Hand.-Mazz.

Delosperma nubigenum (Schltr.) L. Bolus
Digitalis chalcantha (Svent. & O’Shan.) Albach et al. x D. purpurea L.
Dracaena surculosa Lindl.
Elettaria cardamomum (L.) Maton
Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) Lindl.
Fagopyrum tataricum (L.) Gaertn.
Ficus benghalensis L.
Ficus punctata Thunb.

Helianthus decapetalus L.

Hesperaloe parviflora (Torr.) J. M. Coult.

Lathyrus sativus L.

Leucadendron discolor E. Phillips & Hutch. x L. laureolum (Lam.) Fourc.

Leucospermum R. Br.

Leucothoe keiskei Miq.

Lewisia cotyledon (S. Watson) B. L. Rob.

Examination offices entrusted
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Germany — Bundessortenamt  
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB

Netherlands — Naktuinbouw

Denmark — University of Aarhus 
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
Poland — Coboru 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
Poland — Coboru 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
United Kingdom — NIAB
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Spain — OEVV
Poland — Coboru
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
United Kingdom — NIAB 
Germany — Bundessortenamt
Hungary — NÉBIH 
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
France — GEVES
Portugal — DGAV 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
Poland — Coboru
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

53

Ligustrum obtusifolium Siebold & Zucc.

Magnolia laevifolia (Y. W. Law & Y. F. Wu) Noot. (syn.: Michelia yunnanensis Franch. 
ex Finet & Gagnep.)
Mandevilla splendens (Hook. f.) Woodson

Mecardonia procumbens (Mill.) Small

Molinia arundinacea Schrank
Nerine bowdenii W. Watson

Ostrya carpinifolia Scop.

Pennisetum advena Wipff & Veldkamp
Pennisetum americanum (L.) Leeke subsp. stenostachyum (Klotzsch ex. Müll. Berol.) 
Brunken

Pennisetum purpureum Schumach. x P. squamulatum Fresen

Peperomia prostrata B. S. Williams

Philadelphus delavayi L. Henry x Ph. microphyllus A. Gray

Protea burchellii Stapf. x P. obtusifolia H. Buek ex Meisn.

Prunus L. (P. armeniaca L. x P. cerasifera Ehrh. x P. pumila L. var. besseyi (L.H. Bailey) 
Gleason)

Prunus x schmittii Rehder

Rhipsalis clavata F. A. C. Weber
Rhipsalis lindbergiana K. Schum.

Rhodohypoxis Nel

Rubus idaeus L. x R. parvifolius L.

Salix udensis Trautv. & C. A. Mey. (syn. Salix sachalinensis F. Schmidt)

Salix x dasyclados Wimm. x Salix rehderiana C. K. Schneid.

Sansevieria ehrenbergii Schweinf. ex Baker
Solidago canadensis L. x S. virgaurea L.

Stachys byzantina K. Koch x S. debilis Kunth

Syzygium australe (J. C. Wendl. ex Link) B. Hyland

Thalictrum delavayi Franch.

Tibouchina foveolata (Naudin) Cogn. (syn. T. organensis Cogn.) x Tibouchina 
mutabilis (Vell.) Cogn.
Trigonella foenum-graecum L.
Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton x V. corymbosum L.
Wisteria floribunda (Willd.) DC.
x Amarine tubergenii Sealy

Germany — Bundessortenamt 
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB

France — GEVES

Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB
United Kingdom — NIAB

Netherlands — Naktuinbouw

Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Portugal — DGAV
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
France — GEVES 
Hungary — NÉBIH 
Spain — OEVV
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
France — GEVES 
Hungary — NÉBIH
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
Poland — Coboru 
Hungary — NÉBIH
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
Poland — Coboru
Germany — Bundessortenamt 
Poland — Coboru
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB
United Kingdom — NIAB
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw 
United Kingdom — NIAB

Netherlands — Naktuinbouw

France — GEVES
Poland — Coboru
Germany — Bundessortenamt
Netherlands — Naktuinbouw

54

10.4.  Technical liaison officers (TLOs)

The  CPVO  tries  to  have  a  close  and  efficient  working  relationship  with  its  examination 
offices  and  the  national  offices  of  the  Member  States.  Therefore,  in  2002,  the  Office 
formalised a network of contact persons on a technical level in the Member States, the 
so‑called TLOs. The TLOs play an important role in the relationship of the Office with its 
examination offices.

The following principles apply.

•	 TLOs are appointed by the relevant member of the Administrative Council.
•	 There is only one TLO per Member State.
•	 Any modification as far as the TLO is concerned is communicated to the CPVO through 

the relevant member of the Administrative Council.

The role of the TLO can, in general, be defined as being the contact point for the Office on 
a technical level. This means the following in particular.

•	 Invitations for the annual meeting with the examination offices are, in the first place, 
addressed to that person. If the TLO is not attending, he/she should communicate the 
details of the person who is attending that meeting to the CPVO.

•	 Invitations for expert groups on a technical level are initially addressed to the TLO who 
is  in  charge  of  nominating  the  relevant  expert  to  the  CPVO.  Once  an  expert  group 
has been set up, further communications or invitations are directly addressed to the 
relevant designated expert.

•	 The  TLO  should  be  the  person  on  a  national  level  who  is  in  charge  of  distributing 
information of technical relevance in respect of the CPVR system within his or her own 
country/authority  (e.g.  informing  colleagues  who  are  crop  experts)  on  conclusions 
drawn at the annual meeting of the examination offices, etc.

•	 Technical  inquiries,  which  are  sent  out  by  the  CPVO  in  order  to  collect  information, 

should be addressed to the TLOs. Examples include:
 ʲ new species procedures, in order to prepare the proposal for the nomination of 

examination offices to the Administrative Council;

 ʲ questionnaires in respect of closing dates, quality requirements, testing of GMOs, 

etc.

•	 For communications of a general technical nature the Office contacts the TLOs first. 
Specific problems, such as in respect of a certain variety, may be discussed in the first 
instance directly at the level of the crop expert at the examination office and of the 
relevant expert at the CPVO.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

55

The latest version of the list of appointed TLOs (as of 31 December 2013) is as follows.

John Austin

Bronislava Bátorová 

Executive Agency of Variety Testing
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Field Inspection and Seed Control
Bulgaria

UKSUP
Central Controlling and Testing Institute in Agriculture
Variety Testing Department
Slovakia

Alexandra Chatzigeorgiou Ministry of Rural Development and Food

Mihaela Ciora

John Claffey

Teresa Coelho

Maureen Delia

Gerhard Deneken

Françoise De Schutter

Kees van Ettekoven

Barbara Fürnweger

Zsuzsanna Füstös

Sigita Juciuviene

Sofija Kalinina

Marcin Król

Paivi Mannerkorpi

Variety Research Institute of Cultivated Plants
Greece

State Institute for Variety Testing and Registration (ISTIS)
Romania

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Office of the Controller of Plant Breeders’ Rights
Ireland

Direção Geral de Alimentação e Veterinária
Portugal

Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs
Seeds and Other Propagation Material Unit
Plant Health Directorate
Malta

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries
Danish AgriFish Agency
Department of Variety Testing
Denmark

OPRI
Office de la propriété intellectuelle
Belgium

Naktuinbouw
The Netherlands

Bundesamt für Ernährungssicherheit
Austria

National Food Chain Safety Office (NÉBIH)
Directorate of Plant Production and Horticulture
Hungary

Ministry of Agriculture
Lithuanian State Plant Service
Lithuania

State Plant Protection Service
Division of Seed Certification and Plant Variety 
Protection
Latvia

Coboru
Research Centre for Cultivar Testing
Centralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych
Poland

European Commission
Directorate-General for Health and Consumers
Unit E.2 — Plant health
Belgium

56

Clarisse Maton

Kyriacos Mina

GEVES
Groupe d’étude et de contrôle des variétés et des 
semences
France

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and 
Environment
Agricultural Research Institute
Cyprus

Kaarina Paavilainen

Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira
Finland

Laima Puur

Helena Rakovec

Mara Ramans

Ivana Rukavina

Beate Rücker

Radmila Safarikova

Luis Salaices Sánchez

Karin Sperlingsson

Domenico Strazzulla

Marc Weyland

Agricultural Board
Estonia

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food
Phytosanitary Administration of the Republic of Slovenia
Slovenia

Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA)
United Kingdom

Croatian Centre for Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs
Institute for Seed and Seedlings
Croatia 

BSA
Bundessortenamt
Germany

UKZUZ
Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in 
Agriculture
Czech Republic

OEVV
Oficina Española de Variedades Vegetales
Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio 
Ambiente
Spain

Statens Jordbruksverk
Sweden

Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari 
e Forestali
Dipartimento della Politiche Competitive del Mondo 
Rurale e della Qualità
Italy

Administration des Services Techniques de 
l’Agriculture
Service de la Production Végétale
Luxembourg

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SYSTEM — TECHNICAL

57

11. VARIETY DENOMINATIONS

11.1.  The CPVO Variety Finder: latest 

developments

The CPVO Variety Finder is a web‑based database developed by the Office in 2005 for the 
purpose of testing variety denominations proposals in the procedure of assessment of 
their suitability.

It contains national data on varieties applied for and on varieties granted plant variety rights, 
national listings of agricultural and vegetable species and some commercial registers.

The database is freely available under the ‘Databases’ heading of the CPVO website but 
requires an identification. The assignment of a login and password is computerised and 
takes place immediately upon request.

In total, more than 850 000 denominations originating from EU and UPOV Member States 
have been included so far.

Graph 10 below shows an overview of the content of the database with the number of 
records per type of register.

26 161
3 %

99 271
12 %

2 724
0.3 %

128 245
15 %

334 709
40 %

250 539
30 %

For  the  purpose  of  testing  proposed  denominations  for  similarity,  the  system  includes 
a  search  tool  widely  used  by  users  from  43  different  EU  Member  States  and  non‑EU 
countries.

Graph 11 below shows the number of tests for similarity performed in the database by 
national  or  international  authorities  and  CPVO  clients  over  the  last  3  years.  More  than 
83 000 tests were launched in 2013; this represents an increase of 20 % compared to 2012.

Graph 10 

Number of records per type of 

register

Reference list

Plant Patents

Other registers

Commercial registers

Plant breeders’ rights

National listing

58

 
 
 
 
 
 
Graph 11 

Number of tests performed by:

Clients

National or international authorities

  Other categories

Total number of tests

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

46.67%
63 492 tests

53.01 %

0.32 %
2011

42.62 %
69 157 tests
+9 %

53.36 %

4.05 %
2012

83 153 tests
+20 %

34.98 %

53.27 %

11.93 %

2013

90 000

80 000

70 000

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0

s
t
s
e
t

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

A retrieval tool allows more general searches for details on varieties or species present in 
the database.

This  retrieval  tool,  named  ‘Search  varieties’,  was  developed  in  2012,  making  more 
information available for each variety and allowing users to export the desired information 
to an Excel sheet.

The  Office  receives  contributions  directly  from  EU  Member  States  in  respect  of  official 
and commercial registers, and via UPOV for most non‑EU countries. The Office puts great 
effort into keeping the database as up‑to‑date as possible: 90 % of the 400 contributions 
received in 2013 were dealt with within 5 days. There has been a steady increase in the 
number of contributions submitted per year since 2009, as illustrated below. This increase 
continued in 2013, noticeably through contributions from new non‑EU countries.

Graph 12

Evolution of the number of 

contributions (EU, non-EU) included 

in the Variety Finder and the number 

of organisations contributing to the 

Variety Finder

EU Member States

Non-EU countries

Number of organisations

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

324

61

80

2013

291

45

44

2009

289

45

56

2010

300

49

53

2011

296

59

91

2012

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • VARIETY DENOMINATIONS

59

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most of these contributions are provided by UPOV in the framework of a memorandum 
of  understanding,  but  are  also  collected  by  the  CPVO  in  the  case  of  EU  neighbouring 
countries participating in the multi‑beneficiary programme.

11.2.  An increased use of the service of 

cooperation with EU Member States

The purpose of this activity is to harmonise the decisions as to the suitability of proposals 
for  variety  denominations  in  procedures  for  national  plant  variety  rights,  for  national 
listing and at the level of the CPVO.

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  marketing  directives  relevant  to  the  commercialisation  of 
agricultural and  vegetable  varieties in  the  EU  contain  a  cross  reference  to Article 63 of 
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on CPVRs. Article 63 lays down the criteria for the suitability 
of variety denomination proposals. The legal basis in respect of the suitability of variety 
denominations is thus unique.

In March 2010 the CPVO put in place a web‑based system whereby EU Member States can 
request advice from the CPVO before publishing an official proposal for denomination 
in  the  plant  variety  rights  or  listing  procedure.  In  the  case  of  controversial  opinions, 
exchanges of view can take place, but the decision remains in the hands of the authority 
where the application for registration of the variety has been made.

With an 11 % increase in the number of requests for advice, the Office dealt with a total of 
5 800 requests in 2013. This confirms the success of this project, as illustrated in Graph 13 
below.  Most  EU  Member  States  request  advice,  but  some  of  them  started  to  do  it  on 
a  more  systematic  basis  in  2013,  and  this  is  the  main  explanation  for  the  year‑on‑year 
growth so far.

Graph 13

Evolution of the yearly number of 

requests for advice and contributing  

EU Member States (2010–2013)

contributing EU Member States

e
c
i
v
d
a
r
o
f

s
t
s
e
u
q
e
r

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

6 000

5 500

5 000

4 500

4 000

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

60

20

2 590

25

26

27

4 587
+ 77 %

5 213
+ 14 %

5 801
+ 11 %

2010

2011

2012

2013

 
 
 
 
 
 
Graph 14

Shares in processing time per year in 

average duration of analysis in days

Processing time

  within 24 hours

1–2 working days

3–5 working days

6–10 working days

11–15 working days

> 16 working days

Average analysis days

Graph 15

Number of requests for advice 

received per country in 2013

0.74 %

0.74 %

0.16 %

0.26 % 0.68 %

0.11 %

0.54 %

2.94 %

13.50 %

16.73 %

1.08

66.18 %

100

2.12

0.30 %

1.36 %

10.86 %

27.11 %

20.53 %

39.84 %

s
y
a
d
s
i
s
y
l
a
n
a
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n

l

a
t
o
T

f
o
%

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

5.99 %

12.88 %

17.06 %
1.37

62.59 %

3.63 %
7.72 %

87.55 %

0.54

2.20

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

)
s
y
a
d
n
i
(
e
m

i
t
g
n
i
s
s
e
c
o
r
p
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

2010

2011

2012

2013

The  overall  processing  time  has  not  been  affected  by  the  increase,  which  had  already 
been  anticipated  by  the  Administrative  Council  at  the  end  of  2012  when  it  agreed  to 
increase the manpower dedicated to the service from 60 % to 80 % of a full‑time job. As 
a consequence, 95 % of the requests for advice were given within 5 working days and the 
average processing time significantly decreased from 1.37 to 0.54 days.

2013

496

479

403

384

1 309

1 131

248

247

209

183

169

142

Country name

Netherlands

France

Germany

United Kingdom

Italy

Poland

Spain

Czech Republic

Portugal

Bulgaria

Denmark

Austria

Belgium

Slovakia

Norway

Estonia

Greece

Sweden

Hungary

Finland

Croatia

Switzerland

Latvia

Ireland

Lithuania

Romania

Slovenia

92

84

66

50

26

19

18

11

9

7

6

4

4

3

2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 000

1 100

1 200

1 300

1 400

Number of requests for advice

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • VARIETY DENOMINATIONS

61

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In 2013 the CPVO welcomed the participation of Croatia amongst the 27 countries which 
benefited from the service. However, it was still obvious that not all EU Member States 
made use of it on a systematic basis. The CPVO approached directly some of them in this 
respect on the occasion of technical and annual meetings. Explanations and discussions 
provided  by  the  Office  were  welcomed  by  these  countries,  which  showed  a  strong 
willingness to cooperate more closely in the near future.

11.3.  A pilot project for enhanced cooperation in 
denomination testing with the KAVB

With about 1 600 Members, this Dutch association is active in the flower bulb sector. The 
Koninklijke Algemeene Vereeniging voor Bloembollencultuur (KAVB) gathers and registers 
all cultivars for the flower bulb industry and plays a major role in the area of name giving 
and  registration  of  bulbous,  cormous  and  tuberous‑rooted  plants.  This  registration  is 
officially recognised and a precondition for the export of bulbs to some countries.

As a consequence of its registration activity, it is not uncommon for the CPVO to receive 
applications or requests for advice from Member States for ornamental bulb propagated 
species, which first have been registered or for which registration has been applied at the 
KAVB. In case the denomination proposed is deemed to be unsuitable by the CPVO, this 
creates a conflict with the register held by KAVB.

The CPVO and the KAVB have already been cooperating for several years in the framework 
of the exchange of data and information: the KAVB registers are included in the Variety 
Finder database, which can be used by the Dutch association to test the denominations 
proposals  it  receives.  In  case  of  possible  impediment  found  in  the  denomination  for 
a bulb species application, the CPVO and the KAVB communicate between themselves 
before sending an observation.

During its meeting of 2 October 2013, the Administrative Council of the CPVO agreed to 
the principle that the Dutch association join the enhanced cooperation in denomination 
testing  for  a  test  period  of  1  year.  The  KAVB  will  ask  the  CPVO  for  advice  after  having 
checked the suitability of denomination proposals in the Variety Finder. As a consequence, 
the denominations will be automatically included in the CPVO database at an earlier stage 
of the registration procedure and will be taken into account in the results of subsequent 
tests made by all users of the Variety Finder. An assessment report will be provided to the 
Administration Council at the end of 2014.

62

11.4.  Activities for the development and the 

harmonisation of the rules for suitability of 
variety denominations

The  Office  was  invited  by  Plantum  and  KAVB  to  a  seminar  held  in  June  2013  in  the 
Netherlands  in  order  to  explain  to  breeders  the  policy  of  the  Office  in  respect  of  the 
assessment of variety denominations for suitability. The meeting was attended by more 
than  50  participants  and  was  well  received.  One  main  piece  of  feedback  the  Office 
received was that its interpretation of the denomination rules was perceived to be too 
strict by breeders. As a consequence, the CPVO committed to investigate the possibilities 
for the development of its interpretation in the future.

In  July  2013  the  Office  participated  in  Beijing  as  an  observer  in  the  meetings  of  the 
International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants of the International 
Union  for  Biological  Sciences  (IUBS  Commission).  At  those  meetings,  the 
IUBS 
Commission  considered  proposals  to  amend  the  eighth  edition  of  the  International 
Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). The proposals agreed by the IUBS 
Commission will be reflected in the ninth edition of the ICNCP, which is expected to be 
published in 2014. A proposal was made by the IUBS Commission to establish a working 
group, which would include UPOV and CPVO, in the early stages of the preparatory work 
for the tenth edition of the ICNCP.

The Office has decided to follow, as from 1 March 2013, the internationally agreed rules as 
published in the ICNCP for the script of variety denominations. Each word of a denomination 
published  as  a  fancy  name  starts  with  an  initial  capital  letter  unless  linguistic  custom 
demands  otherwise.  Exceptions  are  conjunctions  and  prepositions  other  than  those  in 
the first word of the denominations, e.g. ‘Pride of Africa’. Established abbreviations and 
denominations identified as codes remain in capitals. Finally, denominations appear in all 
documents issued by the CPVO between single quotation marks.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • VARIETY DENOMINATIONS

63

12. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

During  2013  significant  developments  were  made  in  IT  in  all  four  of  the  programmes 
included in the IT vision for the Office. This vision covers four overarching programmes 
which are considered crucial to the continuing development of the CPVO.

12.1.  E‑services

The e‑services programme encompasses all of the various projects which will ensure that 
CPVO dealings with external stakeholders (clients, examination offices and partners such 
as OHIM and UPOV, etc.) shall be online, transparent, paperless and, to the extent possible, 
shall minimise manual intervention in the procedures.

During 2013 the pilot project ‘Exchange platform’ was launched and documents were sent 
securely as from December 2013 to examination offices. This project will continue during 
2014 and the exchange platform will be a key feature of future e‑services applications.

The Office also advanced significantly with the sharing of its online application tools with 
Member States.

12.2.  Operational improvements

Operational tools cover all the IT applications necessary for the day‑to‑day business of the 
Office. As is the case every year, significant developments were made in 2013 in regard 
to internal operational tools which manage, inter alia, application processing, document 
management, HR and finance.

12.3.  Communication tools

Strong  internal  and  external  communication  channels  are  critical.  As  regards  internal 
communication,  the  Office  implemented  a  SharePoint  platform  to  replace  its  intranet 
and shared servers. This project has allowed improved collaboration and a more coherent 
management  of  information.  The  improvement  of  the  external  website  is  an  ongoing 
project within the Office as it is the key point of contact for many stakeholders.

12.4. 

Infrastructure development

With a view to streamlining its infrastructure, a process of server virtualisation was launched 
in 2013. This process, which will continue in the coming years, provides a more efficient 
way to respond to changing data needs while also providing a sound and well‑protected 
architecture. Further changes were made to complete the move to a 64‑bit environment. 
A robust infrastructure remains a cornerstone for all other projects identified above, and 
continues to receive the utmost attention of the IT service.

64

13.

COOPERATION WITH THE 
DIRECTORATE‑GENERAL FOR 
HEALTH AND CONSUMERS

The following committees are organised by the European Commission on a more or less 
regular basis. Staff members of the CPVO attend these meetings as observers in case the 
agenda is of particular interest to the Office.

13.1.  Standing Committee on Community Plant 

Variety Rights

This committee had one meeting on 29 May 2013 to approve a few amendments to the 
fees regulation, namely the reduction of the annual fees from EUR 300 to EUR 250 with 
effect from 1 January 2014. Furthermore the Commission services provided information 
on the latest developments in respect of the Nagoya protocol.

13.2.  Standing Committee on Seeds and 

Propagating Material for Agriculture, 
Horticulture and Forestry

This  committee  met  six  times  during  2013  in  Brussels  and  staff  members  of  the  CPVO 
attended three meetings.

Of particular interest for the CPVO throughout 2013 were the following items.

•	 The Commission’s updates and the related discussions on the review of the legislation 
related to seed and plant material and the discussions on the Commission’s priorities 
for secondary acts of the PRM law.

•	 The discussions relating to a temporary experiment for heterogeneous material.
•	 The  discussion  on  a  draft  Commission  directive  amending  Commission  Directives 
2003/90/EC and 2003/91/EC setting out implementing measures for the purposes of 
Article 7 of Council Directives 2002/53/EC and 2002/55/EC respectively as regards the 
characteristics  to  be  covered  as  a  minimum  by  the  examination  and  the  minimum 
conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant and vegetable species.
•	 Information provided by the Commission on the common catalogues of vegetables 

and agricultural species.

•	 The  CPVO  informs  the  members  of  the  standing  committee  on  a  regular  basis  of 
developments  of  interest  at  the  level  of  the  CPVO  and  here  in  particular  in  respect 
of  decisions  taken  by  the  CPVO  Administrative  Council  on  new  or  revised  technical 
protocols for DUS testing.

13.3.  Standing Committee on Propagating 
Material of Ornamental Plants

This committee did not meet in 2013.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • COOPERATION WITH THE DIRECTORATE‑GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND CONSUMERS

65

13.4.  Standing Committee on Propagating 

Material and Plants of Fruit Genera and 
Species

Council Directive 2008/90/EC on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and 
fruit plants intended for fruit production was adopted on 29 September 2008 and needs 
to be implemented by the Commission.

One major issue in this directive is the obligation of official listing of varieties of fruit plants 
for their commercialisation in the EU as of 1 October 2012. The directive also establishes 
that fruit varieties granted CPVRs will automatically be authorised for marketing within the 
EU without any further need for registration. Implementing rules could unfortunately not 
be agreed upon by 1 October 2012 and the Commission intends to have them adopted 
in 2014 for implementation at the beginning of 2016.

The CPVO participated in most of the standing committee and working group meetings 
organised  by  the  Commission  on  this  subject.  It  assisted  the  Commission  in  drafting 
working group minutes and followed the development of discussions closely, especially 
on  aspects  related  to  the  DUS  examination  and  the  suitability  of  proposed  variety 
denominations. The Office regularly communicated its views to the Commission in this 
respect.

13.5.  Council working parties

Following  an  invitation  from  the  Directorate‑General  for  Health  and  Consumers  to 
integrate the representation from the European Commission, the CPVO participated in 
the following Council working parties:

•	 coordination  of  UPOV  meetings  (Council,  Consultative  Committee,  Technical 

Committee and Administrative and Legal Committee);

•	 agricultural questions, mainly dedicated to discussions on the draft regulation on plant 

reproductive material (PRM);

•	 coordination of OECD meetings on seed schemes (annual meeting).

66

14.

EXTERNAL RELATIONS

14.1.  Contacts with external organisations

14.1.1.  Contacts with breeders’ organisations

The CPVO has regular contact with the breeders’ organisations, in particular with those 
that represent the main users of the EU system: the Organisation of Breeders of Asexually 
Reproduced Ornamental and Fruit Plants (Ciopora); the European Seed Association (ESA), 
which,  on  a  European  level,  organises  breeders  of  agricultural  and  vegetable  varieties; 
and Plantum, an association for the plant reproduction material sector. Representatives of 
these three organisations participate in the CPVO Administrative Council as observers and 
in all relevant meetings of technical experts organised by the Office. The organisations 
take an active part in and contribute to seminars and workshops organised by the CPVO 
to spread information on all aspects of the Community plant variety protection system.

In the report year the CPVO attended the annual meeting of the ESA in Warsaw, Poland. 
The  CPVO  also  participated  in  the  annual  meeting  of  Ciopora  Deutschland.  In  the 
framework of its annual meeting in Angers, France, Ciopora visited the CPVO.

14.1.2.  Contacts with UPOV

The  CPVO  has  participated  in  UPOV  activities  since  1996.  In  July  2005  the  European 
Community became a member of UPOV.

During 2013, as members of the EU delegation, CPVO officials participated in the activities 
of  UPOV  and  attended  the  meetings  of  the  following  bodies  and  committees  of  the 
International Union:

•	 UPOV Council;
•	 Legal and Administrative Committee;
•	 Technical Committee;
•	 Consultative Committee;

Ciopora visiting the CPVO, April 2013

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • EXTERNAL RELATIONS

67

•	 technical working parties (agricultural crops, vegetables crops, fruit crops, ornamental 
plants and forest trees, automation and computer programs and the Working Group 
on Biochemical and Molecular Techniques, and DNA‑Profiling in Particular (BMT));

•	 Advisory Group of the Legal and Administrative Committee;
•	 ad hoc working group on the development of a prototype electronic application form.

On 22 October the CPVO participated in the UPOV seminar on essentially derived varieties 
in Geneva, Switzerland. Technical and legal views on ‘predominantly derived’, ‘essential 
characteristics’ and ‘differences which result from the act of derivation’, the relationship 
between  Articles  14(5)(b)(i)  and  (iii)  of  the  1991  act  of  the  UPOV  convention  and  the 
possible impact on breeding and agriculture were discussed. The president of the CPVO, 
Martin Ekvad, was the moderator of one of the sessions in his capacity as Vice‑Chair of 
the Administrative and Legal Committee. The seminar was open to the public and was 
attended by 177 participants. Documents and a video of the seminar are available on the 
UPOV website.

In its 47th ordinary session on 24 October 2013, the Council of UPOV elected Martin Ekvad 
as Chair of the Administrative and Legal Committee of UPOV for a term of 3 years ending 
with the 50th ordinary session of the Council of UPOV in 2016.

The CPVO collaborated in the training course for Latin American countries on the protection 
of  plant  variety  rights,  organised  by  UPOV,  the  World  Intellectual  Property  Organisation 
(WIPO), the Spanish authorities and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in 
Montevideo (Uruguay) in November. The CPVO vice‑president also participated in a seminar 
on the benefits of plant variety protections systems in line with the UPOV convention. This 
event was organised by UPOV, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture (MAFF), the USPTO and 
the Department of Agriculture of Sri Lanka (DOA). The seminar took place in Kandy, Sri Lanka 
in November 2013. The main aim of the seminar was to explain to the national authorities 
from the region (south‑east Asia) the interest and advantages for national stakeholders of 
a UPOV‑based system for protection of new plant varieties.

Senior officials of the UPOV office regularly attend meetings of experts or working groups 
organised by the CPVO dealing with technical and legal issues of common interest.

The  CPVO  signed  a  memorandum  of  understanding  with  UPOV  in  October  2004  for 
a  programme  of  cooperation.  Within  the  framework  of  this  cooperation  the  CPVO 
exchanged  information  with  UPOV  during  the  development  of  its  CPVO  Variety  Finder 
in order to ensure compatibility with the existing UPOV plant variety database (PLUTO 
database  and  UPOV‑ROM).  Both  databases  contain  data  on  plant  varieties  for  which 
protection has been granted or which are the subject of an application for protection, 
and also those which are included in national lists of varieties for marketing purposes.

The CPVO Variety Finder operates on the basis of a system of codes assigned to botanical 
names and developed by UPOV. Since its release in July 2005 the Office and UPOV have 

68

started to exchange data extensively, UPOV collecting data from non‑EU UPOV countries 
and the Office bringing together data from the EU.

In several regions of the world where countries are members of UPOV, such as Asia, Africa, 
Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean,  there  is  an  emergent  interest  in  knowing  the  details, 
accumulated experience and results relating to plant variety rights systems with a regional 
scope.  The  CPVO  frequently  provides  speakers  for  seminars  and  technical  workshops 
organised by UPOV.

The  CPVO  also  actively  participated  in  the  joint  UPOV–USPTO  ‘Train  the  trainers’ 
programme on plant variety protection in Geneva in September 2013.

14.1.3. 

 Contacts with the Organisation for Economic 
Cooperation and Development (OECD)

In  January  2013  the  vice‑president  of  the  CPVO  attended  the  Technical  Working  Group 
meeting  of  the  OECD  seed  schemes  held  in  Paris  and,  in  June,  the  president  and  the 
vice‑president of the CPVO attended the annual meeting of the OECD seed schemes in Paris.

14.1.4. 

 Contacts with the Office for Harmonization in the 
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

As  a  follow‑up  to  the  actions  started  in  2012,  an  IT  project  in  the  field  of  testing  variety 
denominations  has  been  developed.  Moreover,  in  2013  the  CPVO  started  its  participation 
in  the  legal  working  group  of  the  European  Observatory  on  Infringements  of  Intellectual 
Property Rights and in the plenary session, where it was proposed that the next version of the 
OHIM/EPO’s intellectual property survey shall also include plant variety rights. The CPVO will 
also start participating in the Enforcement Working Group of the Observatory from 2014 on.

14.1.5.  Other contacts

The CPVO maintains regular external contacts by participating in meetings organised by:

•	 the  Commission  Directorate‑General 

for  Human  Resources  and  Security  — 

implementation matters regarding staff regulations;

•	 the  Commission  Directorate‑General  for  the  Budget  —  implementation  of  the  new 

financial regulation and the internal audit function.

In addition, other fields of external activity can be mentioned, such as:

•	 the relevant standing committees of the European Commission;
•	 the Translation Centre Administrative Council;
•	 the coordination of the EU agencies at management level;
•	 the annual coordination meeting of the Publications Office with the EU agencies;

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • EXTERNAL RELATIONS

69

•	 the meetings of the data protection officers of the EU agencies, as well as other working 

groups established under the umbrella of the coordination of EU agencies.

14.2.  Training and promotion of the CPVR system

14.2.1  Participation in international fairs and open days

The  CPVO  considers  its  participation  in  international  fairs  and  open  days  at  examination 
offices to be a useful opportunity to promote the CPVR system, to have direct contact with 
applicants and to provide information to growers. In 2013, the Office participated in two fairs.

•	 At the end of January 2013, the Office attended the IPM (Internationale Pflanzenmesse) 
in  Essen,  Germany.  The  stand  was  shared  with  German  colleagues  from  the 
Bundessortenamt.  Even  though  the  fair  is  open  to  the  entire  field  of  horticulture,  the 
focus lies with ornamentals.

•	 The  Salon  du  Végétal,  which  takes  place  at  the  end  of  February  in  Angers,  France,  is 
a fair mainly for growers of ornamental plants in which the Office regularly participates 
together with GEVES, the French examination office.

•	 An apple open day was organised in cooperation with INRA‑IRHS (the French Institute for 
Research in Horticulture and Seeds) and GEVES on 18 December 2013 in Angers. Around 60 
representatives actively involved in the apple sector participated in it. Breeders presented 
mutation  breeding  as  being  supplementary  to  hybridisation.  Discussions  focused  on 
possible improvements of the DUS testing of varieties obtained from mutations by more 
efficient cooperation with breeders, especially at the initial stages of applications, and by 
a potential use of molecular techniques.

•	 On  5  and  6 December 2013,  the  president  of  the  CPVO  gave  a  speech  at  the  sixth 
International  Conference  on  Intellectual  Property  Protection  for  Plant  Innovation 
in  Amsterdam,  the  Netherlands.  The  seminar  was  organised  by  FORUM,  Institut  für 
Management GmbH. He presented recent developments of the Community plant variety 
protection system and also participated in a panel debate which focused on recent legal 
and policy developments in the plant variety right sector in the EU.

Apple open day, December 2013, France

Apple open day, December 2013, France

70

14.2.2. 

 The multi‑beneficiary programme on the participation 
of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey in 
the Community plant variety rights system

Since 2006 the CPVO has been participating in the so‑called multi‑beneficiary programme 
aimed  at  preparing  candidate  countries  for  accession  to  the  EU.  This  programme  was 
initially  set  up  for  Croatia  and  Turkey.  In  2008  it  was  extended  to  the  former  Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, and since 2009 it has been open to all countries in the western 
Balkans region. Albania and Serbia expressed an interest in participating in its activities in 
2009 and Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2010. Croatia, although an EU Member State since 
1 July 2013, still profits from the current programme, running until autumn 2014.

Within  the  framework  of  this  programme,  representatives  of  the  national  plant  variety 
rights authorities were invited to participate in crop expert meetings held regularly at the 
CPVO. Furthermore, practical DUS training sessions for DUS crop experts were given by 
CPVO examination offices, such as on cereal varieties by the Croatian Institute of Seeds 
and Seedlings for experts from Bosnia and Herzegovina; on fruit varieties at the German 
Bundessortenamt for experts from Croatia; and on tomato varieties at the Polish Coboru 
and on cabbage and onion varieties at the Czech UKZUZ for Albanian experts. Furthermore, 
experts from Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia participated in the 
Apple open day held by GEVES in France.

In addition to the training sessions at EU examination offices, experts from Naktuinbouw 
went  to  Turkey  to  train  experts  in  vegetable  testing.  The  programme  furthermore 
provided  funding  to  enable  beneficiaries  to  participate  in  the  CPVO’s  seminar  on  the 
enforcement of plant variety rights held in May in Rome and to allow one Serbian expert to 
participate in a 2‑week training course on plant variety protection given by the University 
of Wageningen, in the Netherlands. The Office gave a workshop for Serbian experts on 
variety  denomination,  including  the  establishment  of  databases  and  the  exchange  of 
information. Finally, within the framework of this programme, the Office participated in 
the congress ‘Intellectual Property Rights in Plant Breeding’ held in Antalya, Turkey.

14.2.3. 

 Contacts with the African Regional Intellectual Property 
Organisation (ARIPO)

The ARIPO is an intergovernmental organisation which was established in Lusaka, Zambia, 
in 1976 by an agreement concluded under the auspices of the United Nations Economic 
Commission for Africa (ECA) and the WIPO. The ARIPO was created, inter alia, to promote 
the development of intellectual property laws appropriate to the needs of its members, 
to  establish  common  services  and  training  schemes  and  to  assist  its  members  in  the 
acquisition  and  development  of  technology  and  the  evolving  of  common  views  on 
intellectual  property  matters.  The  organisation  has  18  member  countries.  The  ARIPO  is 
in the process of developing a regional system for the protection of new plant varieties.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • EXTERNAL RELATIONS

71

The  president  of  the  CPVO  participated  in  a  regional  workshop  on  the  ARIPO  legal 
framework  for  the  protection  of  new  varieties  of  plants  and  a  workshop  on  the  ARIPO 
regional framework for the protection of new varieties of plants in Lilongwe, Malawi on 
22–25 July 2013, which was organised in cooperation with UPOV and with the assistance 
of the USPTO and the WIPO. It was an expert meeting concerning the recommendations 
of the Administrative Council of the ARIPO on the legal framework for the protection of 
new varieties of plants. The CPVO presented the EU system of plant variety protection and 
Naktuinbouw presented the Dutch system and how that interacts with a regional system. 
Questions posed by civil organisations were also addressed during the two workshops.

14.2.4. 

 Contacts with the Association of Southeast Asian 
Nations (ASEAN)

The Thai government is considering amending its plant variety rights legislation so that it 
will comply with the UPOV 1991 act and subsequently applying for UPOV membership. 
In  order  to  acquire  information  on  how  the  UPOV  convention  has  been  successfully 
implemented in Europe, the president of the CPVO was invited by the Thai Department 
of  Agriculture  to  give  a  presentation  in  Bangkok  to  stakeholders  in  the  subject  matter 
on 18 November 2013. Specific focus was on the scope of the breeders’ rights, including 
essentially derived varieties and the exceptions relating to breeders’ exemptions and the 
farm‑saved seed exemption.

14.2.5.  Contacts with universities

In  2013,  the  legal  adviser  of  the  CPVO,  Muriel  Lightbourne,  presented  the  system  of 
plant variety rights to the students of the master’s course in intellectual property of the 
University of Alicante — ‘Magister Lucentinus’ (Spain). Among other contacts, the head of 
the Legal Unit of the CPVO, Francesco Mattina, made a presentation to the students of the 
ESSCA School of Management, Angers.

The president of the CPVO gave a presentation to the course on plant variety protection 
at the University of Wageningen on 24 June 2013.

72

15.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS

In  2001  specific  rules  on  public  access  to  documents  held  by  the  European  Parliament, 
the  Council  and  the  Commission  were  introduced  by  the  adoption  of  Regulation  (EC) 
No  1049/2001  (1).  In  order  for  these  rules  to  apply  also  to  documents  held  by  the  Office, 
a new article, Article 33a, was introduced into the basic regulation in 2003 by the adoption 
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1650/2003 (2).

Article 33a contains the following elements.

•	 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council 
and  Commission  documents  shall  also  apply  to  documents  held  by  the  Office.  This 
provision entered into force on 1 October 2003.

•	 The  Administrative  Council  shall  adopt  practical  arrangements  for  implementing 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001.  The  Administrative  Council  adopted  such  practical 
arrangements on 25 March 2004. These rules entered into force on 1 April 2004.
•	 Decisions taken by the Office on public access to documents may form the subject of 

a complaint to the Ombudsman or of an action before the Court of Justice.

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the rules adopted by the Administrative Council are 
available on the website of the Office. Information on these rules and forms to use when 
requesting access to a document have also been published on the website of the Office.

The Office follows up the implementation and application of the rules on public access to 
documents by reporting annually on information such as the number of cases in which 
the Office refused to grant access to documents and the reasons for such refusals.

Year of 
receipt
2004
2005
2006
2007

Number of requests 
for access received
30
55
58
55

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

57

54

63

71

88

63

Number of 
refusals
6 (partial)
2 (partial)
6 (partial)
17 (partial)

19 (partial)

28 (partial)

29 (partial)

27 (partial)

57 (partial)

18 (partial)

Reasons for such refusals

Confidential technical questionnaire not sent
Confidential technical questionnaire not sent
Confidential technical questionnaire not sent
Confidential technical questionnaire not sent/
information of commercial interest not sent
Confidential technical questionnaire/photo/assignment 
not sent
Confidential technical questionnaire not sent/ 
information of commercial interest not sent/ photos not 
available
Confidential technical questionnaire not sent/ 
information of commercial interest not sent
Confidential technical questionnaire not sent/ 
information of commercial interest not sent
Confidential technical questionnaire not sent/ 
information of commercial interest not sent
Confidential technical questionnaire not sent/ 
information of commercial interest not sent

Confirmatory 
applications

2 (successful)

1 (unsuccessful)

2 (successful)

1 (unsuccessful)

2 (1 unsuccessful and 
1 successful)
8 (3 unsuccessful and 
5 successful)
1 (unsuccessful)

(1) 

(2) 

 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding 
public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
 Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1650/2003  of  18 June 2003  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2100/94  on 
Community plant variety rights (OJ L 245 of 29.9.2003, p. 28).

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • PUBLIC ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS

73

16. REPORT OF THE DATA PROTECTION 

OFFICER (DPO)

16.1.  Legal background

Regulation  (EC)  No  45/2001  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
18 December 2000  on  the  protection  of  individuals  with  regard  to  the  processing  of 
personal  data  by  the  Community  institutions  and  bodies  and  on  the  free  movement 
of  such  data  was  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  complying  with  Article  16  of  the  Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 16 requires the application to the EU 
institutions and bodies of the Union acts on the protection of individuals with regard to 
the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data.

‘Processing of data’ has quite a broad meaning, and means not only transferring data to 
third parties but also collecting, recording and storing data, whether or not by electronic 
means.

16.2.  Role and tasks of the DPO

Regulation  (EC)  No  45/2001  requires  the  nomination  of  at  least  one  DPO  in  the  EU 
institutions  and  bodies  who  should  ensure,  in  an  independent  manner,  the  internal 
application of the provisions in the regulation.

The main task of the DPO is to ensure, in an independent manner, the internal application 
of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 in the CPVO. The DPO is also required to 
keep a register (3) of all of the processing operations involving personal data carried out 
by the CPVO. This register, which must contain information explaining the purpose and 
conditions of the processing operations, is accessible to any interested person in the DPO 
intranet webpages.

By  decision  of  the  CPVO  president  of  24 April 2012  the  acting  part‑time  DPO  was 
reappointed for a term of 2 more years.

16.3.  Report of the DPO for 2013

16.3.1.  Register of data processing operations

The  DPO  created  a  register  of  data  protection  operations  in  the  form  of  a  database, 
available  from  the  CPVO  intranet,  under  the  DPO  intranet  site.  This  register  contains 
notifications (Article 25) received from the controllers, as well as prior checking operations 
(Article 27) sent to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) for an opinion.

This register contained, as at the end of 2013, 54 entries composed of 35 notifications and 
19 prior checking operations, all with an opinion from the EDPS.

(3) 

https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/lang/en/EDPS/DPO/DPO_Register

74

16.3.2. 

Inventory of data processing operations

An inventory was first drafted by the DPO when appointed and is regularly updated with 
new processing operations within the CPVO. This inventory contained, as at the end of 
2013, 54 processing operations, of which four still need to be notified to the DPO and 
finalised in the register.

16.3.3.  Thematic guidelines of the EDPS

The  EDPS  issues  guidelines  on  specific  themes  in  order  to  provide  guidance  for  EU 
institutions and bodies in certain fields relevant to them, such as recruitment, processing 
of disciplinary data and video surveillance.

These guidelines also facilitate the prior checking by the EDPS of processing operations 
in the EU agencies as they serve as a reference document against which agencies can 
measure their current practices.

The  EDPS  adopted  thematic  guidelines  concerning  the  processing  of  personal  data  in 
the context of public procurement, grants and the selection and use of external experts.

16.3.4. 

Information provided to data subjects

The staff members of the CPVO are informed about data protection issues through the DPO 
website, which is updated on a regular basis. It contains the principles of data protection, 
the  subjects’  rights,  the  controller’s  obligations,  the  regulation,  some  documents  and 
decisions of the president relating to data protection issues, data protection notices and 
privacy  statements,  the  register,  the  forms  for  notifications  to  the  DPO  and  a  contact 
e‑mail address.

In September 2013 the staff members were presented with the data protection policy of 
the CPVO and the progress made therewith during the general assembly of members of 
staff.

16.3.5.  Meetings of the DPO network in 2013

As a function common to all EU institutions and bodies, DPOs are now well established 
and  regularly  meet  within  a  network  of  DPOs  once  or  twice  a  year  in  order  to  share 
know‑how and best practices and exchange with the EDPS.

The  DPO  of  the  CPVO  participated  in  one  meeting  of  the  DPO  network,  in  Brussels 
(November 2013).

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • REPORT OF THE DATA PROTECTION OFFICER (DPO)

75

17. APPEAL PROCEDURES

17.1.  Composition of the Board of Appeal of the 

CPVO

The  Board  of  Appeal  of  the  CPVO  is  composed  of  a  chairperson,  an  alternate  to  the 
chairperson and qualified members.

17.1.1.  Chairperson and alternate of the Board of Appeal

Mr Paul van der Kooij’s position as Chairperson of the Board of Appeal was renewed for 
a term of 5 years by a Council Decision of 4 December 2012 (OJ C 378, 8.12.2012, p. 2). His 
alternate, Ms Sari Haukka, was appointed by a Council Decision of 12 July 2011 (OJ C 209, 
15.7.2011, p. 17). Her mandate runs from 15 October 2011 until 14 October 2016.

17.1.2.  Qualified members of the Board of Appeal

In accordance with the procedure prescribed by Article 47(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2100/94, the Administrative Council of the CPVO, at its meeting of 16 February 2011, 
adopted the following list of 19 qualified members of the Board of Appeal for a period 
of 5 years starting on 23 February 2011 (21 members were appointed but two members 
resigned, on 24 November 2011 and on 12 November 2012).

List of qualified members 2011–16

Barendrecht, Cornelis Joost
Bianchi, Pier Giacomo
Bianchi, Richard
Boenisch, Beatrix
Brand, Richard
Csurös, Zoltán
Fikkert, Krieno Adriaan

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Ghijsen, Huibert Cornelis Helmer
9. Guiard, Joël
10. Johnson, Helen

11.  Köller, Michaël
12. Pinheiro de Carvalho, Miguel Angelo
13.  Reheul, Dirk
14. Riechenberg, Kurt
15. Roberts, Timothy Wace
16. Scott, Elizabeth
17. Ullrich, Hanns
18. Van Marrewijk, Nicolaas Petrus Antonius
19. Van Wijk, Arnold Jan Piet

Board of Appeal meeting, September 2013, Angers

76

17.2.  Decisions of the Board of Appeal in 2013

The  Board  of  Appeal  met  once  on  20 September 2013  in  appeal  Cases  A003/2007 
and  A004/2007  (Gala  Schnitzer)  and  took  two  decisions  cancelling  CPVR  EU  18759  of 
26 February 2007 and Decisions OBJ06‑021 and OBJ06‑022.

17.2.1. 

 Appeal Cases A003/2007 and A004/2007 further remitted 
to the board by Judgment of the Court of Justice of 
19.12.2012 in Case C‑534/10P — Gala Schnitzer

Background

The  CPVO  received  on  18 January 1999  an  application  from  KSB,  the  legal  predecessor 
of  Schniga  GmbH,  for  the  apple  variety  Gala  Schnitzer.  In  2005  two  objections  were 
lodged  against  the  application  for  the  said  variety  by  Elaris  SNC  and  Brookfield  New 
Zealand Ltd, licensee and holder respectively of a CPVR for the Baigent variety. The final 
technical examination report for the DUS test was issued in 2005. The president of the 
CPVO approved with a decision of December 2006 the use of an additional characteristic, 
namely  ‘fruit:  width  and  stripes’,  for  establishing  the  distinctness  of  the  Gala  Schnitzer 
variety. A corrigendum issued on 5 February 2007 corrected an error in the initial decision. 
Finally, the relevant committee of the CPVO rejected the objections lodged and granted 
a CPVR for the Gala Schnitzer on 26 February 2007. The CPVO held, among others, that the 
allowance of the additional characteristic was justified for technical reasons. 

On  11  April  2007,  Elaris  SNC  and  Brookfield  New  Zealand  Ltd  filed  notices  of  appeal 
before  the  Board  of  Appeal  against  the  decisions  of  the  committee  of  the  CPVO.  In  its 
decision delivered on 21 November 2007 the Board of Appeal of the CPVO annulled the 
decisions and refused the application for the Gala Schnitzer variety (Cases A003/2007 and 
A004/2007).

However, the Board of Appeal only dealt with the question of whether the resubmission of 
plant material for the DUS test had been justified. On 6 August 2008 the Bundessortenamt 
sent the raw data of the observations during the DUS test at Wurzen, Germany. The data 
demonstrated that the additional characteristic ‘fruit: width of stripes’ had been observed 
only in 2005. On 8 August 2008 the Bundessortenamt reported that this characteristic was 
further assessed in 2006 and 2007 (after the final technical examination report).

On 4 April 2008, Schniga GmbH brought an action against the decision of the Board of Appeal 
before the General Court. The General Court upheld the action and annulled the Board of 
Appeal’s decision (Case T‑135/08) on 13 September 2010. Brookfield New Zealand Ltd and 
Elaris SNC filed an appeal against the judgment of Case T‑135/08. On 19 December 2012 the 
Court of Justice dismissed the appeal.

Based  on  the  decision  of  the  General  Court  (Case  T‑135/08),  the  Board  of  Appeal  was 
to  determine  whether  or  not  the  candidate  variety,  Gala  Schnitzer,  is  distinct  from  the 

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • APPEAL PROCEDURES

77

reference variety, Baigent. The appellant requested that the grant of CPVR EU 18759 and 
the decisions OBJ06‑021 and OBJ06‑22 be cancelled.

Arguments raised by the parties

•	 The  appellant  argued  that  the  conduct  of  DUS  testing  must  be  in  accordance  with 
the relevant test guidelines. The decision of the president of the CPVO to accept ex 
post an additional characteristic for testing purposes pursuant to Article 23 of the basic 
regulation was flawed. The DUS testing procedure for the candidate variety was flawed. 
Two  satisfactory  crops  should  be  tested  to  establish  distinctness  on  a  characteristic 
before the grant of CPVRs. 

•	 The  applicant  stated  that  the  test  guidelines  were  merely  a  framework  and  not  to 
be  applied  strictly.  He  further  noted  that  it  might  not  be  necessary  to  examine  all 
characteristics between two crops if there were elements to establish that the variety 
was stable and distinct. The decision of the CPVO to adopt an additional characteristic 
was justified. 

•	 The president of the CPVO claimed that the decision was not flawed. He further stated 
that one season of testing was considered sufficient in respect of that characteristic.

Decision of the Board of Appeal

The  Board  of  Appeal  noted  that  the  mention  of  the  other  characteristic  ‘fruit:  width  of 
stripes’  was  only  made  when  the  final  technical  examination  report  was  issued  and 
authorisation to use it was given by the president of the CPVO around 1 year after the 
final technical examination report. The Board of Appeal held that it was not permitted to 
determine the distinctness of the variety on the basis of an additional characteristic that 
was not listed in the protocol or the guideline applicable at the time. The characteristic 
‘fruit: width of stripes’ did not exist as an official one in the protocol or the guideline and 
there was no request made to test it as additional one. There is, therefore, an infringement 
of point III of TP 14/1 and the candidate variety cannot be deemed legally distinct from 
Baigent. The post‑examination decision of the president of the CPVO allowing the said 
additional  characteristic  is  fundamentally  flawed  and  cannot  be  justified.  The  Board  of 
Appeal cited Decision A010/2008, which states that additional characteristics should be 
approved in advance by the president of the CPVO.

The Board of Appeal also stated that, as general rule, retroactive effect of a decision of 
the Administrative Council of the CPVO is not possible. Apart from the fact that the said 
characteristic  was  not  valid  according  to  the  conclusion  of  the  Board  of  Appeal,  the 
DUS  test  was  further  flawed  since  the  characteristic  was  tested  only  for  the  year  2005. 
TG/1/2, which has to be followed according to TG/14/8, specifies that, in order to establish 
distinctness  between  two  varieties,  the  difference  must  be  found  to  be  consistent.  It 
is  consistent  if  it  occurs  with  the  same  sign  in  two  consecutive  or  in  two  out  of  three 
growing seasons. Therefore, the Board of Appeal held that there was infringement of the 
protocol and the guideline since the characteristic had been observed only in 2005 and 
a check for consistency was not made.

78

The  Board  of  Appeal  concluded  that,  following  the  infringement  of  the  DUS  test 
procedures, the candidate variety could not be held legally distinct from the reference 
variety.  CPVR  EU  18759  and  decisions  OBJ06‑021  and  OBJ06‑022  were  cancelled  and 
the CPVO was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings incurred by both the 
appellant and the applicant.

17.2.2.  Appeal Case A007/2011 — Pink Sachsenstern

Background

On  27 March 2008  an  application  for  a  Community  plant  variety  right  was  filed  by 
Mr Karsten Rannacher for the variety Pink Sachsenstern. Following a request by the CPVO, 
Mr Rannacher clarified that the variety, a mutant of the variety ‘Sachsenstern’ protected in 
Germany and Belgium in his name, had been discovered and developed by Mr Peter de 
Langhe. Mr Rannacher further explained that Mr de Langhe had verbally agreed with him 
to transfer ownership of the variety Pink Sachsenstern to him but he could not produce any 
written evidence of entitlement. Said verbal agreement was confirmed by Mr Rannacher’s 
representative in Belgium. However, Mr Rannacher was not able to provide documentary 
evidence of the transfer of ownership. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the application for 
a CPVR was not refused at that time.

On 25 May 2009 Mr de Langhe filed an objection to the grant of the plant variety right for 
Pink Sachsenstern on the grounds that it was not distinct from the variety Fluostern, for 
which the former had filed an application with the CPVO on 10 October 2007. It emerged, 
inter alia, that Pink Sachsenstern and Fluostern are the same variety and the Office accepted 
that any documentary evidence (apart from a written agreement) could be submitted to 
support the transfer of rights, in accordance with Article 50(1)(d) of the basic regulation. 
The Office finally concluded that the evidence provided was not sufficient.

On  17 January 2011,  the  Office  rendered  three  related  decisions:  refusal  of  the 
applications for Pink Sachsenstern and Fluostern, admission of Mr de Langhe’s objection 
to the application for Pink Sachsenstern and rejection of Mr Rannacher’s objection to the 
application for Fluostern.

Following  the  above  decisions,  three  appeals  (namely  A006/2011,  A007/2011  and 
A008/2011) were lodged by Mr de Langhe and Mr Rannacher.

Arguments raised by the parties

On 30 July 2012 the CPVO received a joint letter from the parties (following an amicable 
settlement) stating that all rights to Pink Sachsenstern/Fluostern would be transferred by 
Mr de Langhe to Mr Rannacher, appeals A006/2011 and A008/2011 would be withdrawn, 
Mr de Langhe’s objection would be withdrawn, and the parties jointly asked the Board of 
Appeal to annul the Office’s decision to refuse a Community plant variety right for Pink 
Sachsenstern (R860) and grant the CPVR, or remit the case to the Office for a decision.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • APPEAL PROCEDURES

79

Decision of the Board of Appeal

The Board of Appeal found appeal A007/2011 to be admissible.

The  Board  of  Appeal  assessed  whether  the  processing  of  the  application  for  Pink 
Sachsenstern  could  be  continued,  whether  the  current  rules  allowed  the  continuation 
of the application and whether the appeal against the refusal for the application for Pink 
Sachsenstern still required processing.

The  letter  sent  by  the  parties  on  30 July 2012  established  that  Mr  Rannacher  was  the 
person entitled to the variety Pink Sachsenstern. Therefore, in accordance with what is laid 
down in Article 54 of the basic regulation and the suspensory effect of the appeal (Article 
67(2) of the basic regulation), the application procedure could be continued. There was 
no need to discuss the appeal against the refusal of the application. No obstacle to the 
granting of CPVR for the variety Pink Sachsenstern existed anymore.

The  Board  of  Appeal  concluded  that  the  application  for  the  variety  Pink  Sachsenstern 
should be remitted to the CPVO for further prosecution. Since the decision rendered by 
the Board of Appeal followed from the settlement reached by the parties after the appeal 
had been lodged, the parties should each bear their own costs.

17.3.  Disputes concerning the costs of 

proceedings to be recovered under 
Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure of the 
General Court and Article 145 of the Rules 
of Procedure of the Court of Justice

Under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and Article 145 of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, if there is a dispute concerning the costs of the 
proceedings to be recovered, an application by the party concerned may be lodged in 
order for the General Court/Court of Justice to make an order.

17.3.1. 

 New applications concerning the costs of proceedings 
to be recovered

On  7 February 2013  two  applications  concerning  the  costs  of  the  proceedings  to 
be  recovered  in  Cases  T‑187/06  DEP  I  and  C‑38/09  P‑DEP  were  lodged  by  the  CPVO, 
respectively with the General Court and the Court of Justice. Indeed, since there was no 
agreement between the CPVO and Mr Schräder on the recoverable costs of proceedings 
in both cases, the CPVO asked the General Court and the Court of Justice to make an order 
concerning the costs to be recovered.

80

17.3.2.  Rulings of the General Court in 2013

Order of the General Court delivered on 26 September 2013 (Case T‑187/06 DEP I) — 

Sumcol 01

With its judgment of 19 November 2008 concerning the variety Sumcol 01 (T‑187/06) the 
General Court dismissed the action against Decision A003/2004 of the Board of Appeal of 
the CPVO and ordered that the losing party bear the costs. On 15 April 2010 the Court of 
Justice dismissed the appeal against Decision T‑187/06 and ordered that Mr Schräder bear 
the costs (C‑38/09 P). Since there was no agreement between the CPVO and Mr Schräder 
on the recoverable costs of proceedings, the CPVO asked the General Court to decide on 
the expenses.

The  CPVO  asked  to  fix  the  recoverable  costs  at  EUR  10  824.40 plus EUR  2  000.00  for 
disbursements regarding the procedure on the fixing of costs.

The  General  Court  stated  that,  according  to  Article  91(b)  of  the  Rules  of  Procedure  of 
the  General  Court,  recoverable  costs  are  expenses  incurred  for  the  purposes  of  the 
proceedings. According to Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union, every European institution can seek the assistance of a lawyer. The remuneration of 
the lawyer forms part of the necessary costs for the purposes of the proceedings. However, 
although the expenses for the assistance of a lawyer cannot be completely excluded from 
the amount of recoverable costs, the total amount due can be investigated.

The General Court found that the assistance of an external German‑speaking lawyer was 
duly justified since no legally qualified staff members at the CPVO had German as their 
mother  tongue  and  therefore  a  German  lawyer  was  required  for  these  proceedings  in 
order to best defend the interests of the CPVO. Besides, Case T‑187/06 was the first case 
on CPVRs brought before the General Court and concerned important legal and practical 
matters for the CPVO, although the economic interests encountered were not so high. 
The General Court noted that the case entailed difficulties and complexities because of 
the subject of the case, the claims of Mr Schräder (complicated and lengthy) and the issues 
at stake. Therefore, a considerable amount of time was necessary in order to prepare the 
defence and attend the hearing.

The General Court decided on the reimbursement of costs based on praetorian criteria 
taking into consideration the precise information that the parties provided. The General 
Court  decided  that  an  amount  of  EUR  10  000.00  should  be  paid  by  Mr  Schräder  as 
recoverable costs to the CPVO.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • APPEAL PROCEDURES

81

17.3.3.  Rulings of the Court of Justice in 2013

Order of the Court of Justice, delivered on 10 October 2013 (Case C‑38/09 P‑DEP) — 

Sumcol 01

By  appeal  lodged  with  the  Register  of  the  Court  of  Justice  on  28 January 2009,  the 
defendant sought the annulment of the decision of the General Court in Case T‑187/06, 
which dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the 
CPVO in proceeding A003/2004. The Court of Justice ruled on that appeal (Case C‑38/09 P) 
by rejecting the action as partially inadmissible and partially not founded and ordered the 
defendant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. Since no agreement was reached 
on  the  recovery  of  costs,  the  CPVO  brought  an  action  before  the  Court  of  Justice.  The 
CPVO asked the Court of Justice to fix the amount of recoverable costs at EUR 28 287.59 
(Case C‑38/09 P‑DEP).

According to Article 144(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and in light of 
Article 184.1 of the same rules, recoverable costs are considered the ‘expenses necessarily 
incurred  by  the  parties  for  the  purpose  of  the  proceedings,  in  particular  the  travel  and 
subsistence expenses and the remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers.’ In addition, and 
according to a constant jurisprudence and Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice 
of  the  European  Union,  the  European  institutions  have  the  discretion  to  decide  on  their 
representation and assistance by a lawyer or an external agent before the Court of Justice.

Concerning the remuneration of the lawyer, the Court of the Justice stated that it was 
authorised to determine the amount up to which that remuneration may be recovered 
from the losing party.

In this case the dispute was an appeal which, by definition, is limited to questions of law. 
The Court of Justice found that the preparation of the defence for the appeal did not need 
work  of  considerable  magnitude,  taking  into  consideration  the  volume  of  the  defence 
documents and that the lawyer was already familiar with the case.

The Court of Justice decided to fix the total of EUR 9 942.54 as recoverable costs.

17.4.  Further appeals to the Court of Justice 

in 2013

In accordance with Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, a further appeal to the Court 
of Justice shall lie from decisions of the Board of Appeal.

82

17.4.1.  Rulings by the General Court in 2013

Order of the General Court delivered on 21 October 2013 (Case T‑367/11) — 

Southern Splendour

Background

On  27 September 2006  Plant  Marketing  International  Ltd  (PMI)  filed  an  application  for 
a  CPVR  at  the  CPVO  for  the  plant  variety  Southern  Splendour  of  the  species  Cordyline 
Comm. Ex R. Br. PMI later explained that Lyder Enterprises Ltd was the owner of the plant 
variety and PMI was just the representative of the owner.

On 11 January 2008 the intervener Liner Plants Ltd submitted a written objection before 
the CPVO for the said variety. The intervener claimed that the ‘deed of assignment and 
acceptance  of  agreement  micro‑propagation  and  production  of  weaned  plants’  of 
10 October 2002  provided  by  the  alleged  owner  did  not  transfer  the  ownership  of  the 
said plant variety.

On  7 December 2009  the  CPVO  decided  to  accept  the  objection  and  refuse  the 
application for the plant variety Southern Splendour on the grounds of lack of novelty 
and entitlement.

The applicant lodged an appeal against the abovementioned decision (R972).

The  Board  of  Appeal  dismissed  the  appeal  (A007/2010)  on  the  grounds  of  insufficient 
evidence as to the applicant being the breeder and did not rule on the novelty of the variety.

After the decision of the Board of Appeal the applicant brought two actions before the 
New  Zealand  High  Court  in  order  for  it  to  be  determined  if  there  was  indeed  a  valid 
transfer of the right. Lyder asked the General Court to accept the action as admissible, 
annul the decision of the Board of Appeal and stay the proceedings until the decision of 
the New Zealand Court.

Order of the General Court

The order on Southern Splendour (Case T‑367/11) was rendered by the General Court on 
21 October 2013. The General Court stated that new pleas in law are allowed only if they 
are based on matters of law or facts that come to light in the course of the procedure and 
therefore  dismissed  the  request  of  the  applicant  to  annul  the  decision  of  the  Boards  of 
Appeal of the CPVO on Joint Cases A001/2010, A005/2010 and A006/2010 because the plea 
was not included in the form of order sought in the application before the General Court.

The  General  Court  stated  that  the  CPVO  and  the  Board  of  Appeal  were  competent  to 
decide  on  the  entitlement  of  the  applicant  to  apply  for  a  CPVR  and  to  interpret  the 

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • APPEAL PROCEDURES

83

contract provided by the applicant. The plea in law concerning the lack of competence 
was rejected as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

The General Court also dismissed the claim that the Board of Appeal of the CPVO erred 
in law in Decision A007/2010. The Board of Appeal had taken into account the disputed 
evidence  and  qualified  it  as  unsworn  declarations  with  limited  probative  value  in  the 
absence of other evidence to corroborate it.

The General Court also refused the request made by the applicant to stay the proceedings 
until  the  decision  on  the  entitlement  of  the  New  Zealand  High  Court  is  rendered.  The 
General Court cannot annul or alter a decision on grounds which come into existence 
subsequent to the adoption of the contested decision. In addition, facts not submitted 
by the parties before the CPVO cannot be submitted at the stage of the action brought 
before the General Court. The General Court cannot re‑examine whether the application 
for a CPVR met the conditions of Article 11 of the basic regulation on the basis of evidence 
that was not submitted before the Board of Appeal.

Therefore, the General Court dismissed the action as partially manifestly inadmissible and 
partially manifestly lacking any foundation in law and ordered Lyder Enterprises Ltd to pay 
the costs of the proceedings.

17.4.2. 

 State of affairs of the further appeals lodged with the 
Court of Justice

Case No before 
the General 
Court

Contested decision No

Variety 
denomination

Date of 
General 
Court ruling

Date of further 
appeal to the 
Court of Justice

Case No before 
the Court of 
Justice 

Date of Court 
of Justice 
ruling

T-95/06

T-187/06

A001/2005

A003/2004

Nadorcott

Sumcol 01

31.1.2008

N/A

N/A

N/A

19.11.2008

29.1.2009

C-38/09 P

15.4.2010

T-187/06 DEP I

Non-payment of 
recoverable costs of the 
proceedings T-187/06

Sumcol 01

16.9.2013

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

T-133/08

T-134/08

T-135/08

T-177/08

T-242/09

T-367/11

N/A

A007/2007

A006/2007

A003/2007 and 
A004/2007

A005/2007

A010/2007

A007/2010

Sumcol 01

N/A

7.2.2013

C-38/09 P-DEP

10.10.2013

Lemon Symphony

18.9.2012

28.11.2012

Lemon Symphony

18.9.2012

28.11.2012

C-546/12 P

C-546/12 P

Pending

Pending

Gala Schnitzer

13.9.2010

15.11.2010

C-534/10 P

19.12.2012

Sumost 01

18.9.2012

28.11.2012

Lemon Symphony

18.9.2012

28.11.2012

Southern Splendour 21.10.2013

N/A

C-546/12 P

C-546/12 P

N/A

Pending

Pending

N/A

84

Graph 16

Number of appeal cases lodged per 

year with the CPVO between 1996 

and 2013

Graph 17

Legal basis of the appeal cases 

lodged with the CPVO since 1996

17.5.  Appeals received by the CPVO and 

decisions reached by the Board of Appeal 
since its inception (statistics)

17.5.1. 

 Number of appeals lodged per year between 
1996 and 2013

One hundred and thirty‑five appeals have been lodged with the CPVO since the opening 
of the Office. These are distributed as shown in Graph 16.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

28

16

16

18

10

12

7

7

6

4

4

2

2

2

0

0

1

1

0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

17.5.2. 

 Legal basis of the appeals lodged since 1996 (with 
reference to Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94)

Article 83 (non-payment of fees)

67

Article 61 (distinctness)

20

Article 62 (grant)

12

Article 61 (uniformity)

Article 20 (nullity)

Article 61 (entitlement)

Article 61 (novelty)
Article 61 (non-compliance
with request for testing)

8

7

4

4

4

Article 21 (cancellation)

3

Article 63 (variety denomination)

Article 87 (registers)
Article 66 (amendment variety
denomination)
Article 59 (objection)

2

2

1

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of cases

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • APPEAL PROCEDURES

85

17.5.3.  Decisions of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO per year

A  total  of  58  decisions  were  taken  by  the  Board  of  Appeal  of  the  CPVO  between 
1996 and 2013, distributed as detailed in Graph 18.

Graph 18

Number of decisions reached by the 

Board of Appeal  per year since 1996

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

15

5

4

3

6

5

4

4

3

2

1

2

2

1

1

0

0

0

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 2012

2013

The references of the decisions taken by the Board of Appeal are given in the following 
table.

Year

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Appeal case number and date 

of decision of the Board of Appeal

A002/1998 of 14.9.1999

A001/1999 of 25.1.2000

A002/1999 of 19.5.2000

A002/2000 of 27.3.2001

A004/2000 of 6.12.2001

A005/2000 of 28.5.2002

A005/2002 of 2.4.2003

A001/2002, A002/2002 and A003/2002 of 1.4.2003

A018/2002 of 14.5.2003

A008/2002, A009/2002, A010/2002, A011/2002, A012/2002 and 

A013/2002 of 15.5.2003

A017/2002 of 3.4.2003

A023/2002 of 8.10.2003

A031/2002 of 8.12.2003

A021/2002 of 9.12.2003

2004

A003/2003 and A004/2003 of 4.6.2004

A005/2003 and A006/2003 of 28.9.2004

A001/2004 of 16.12.2004

86

2005

A006/2004 of 15.6.2005

A005/2004 of 16.6.2005

A004/2004 of 18.7.2005

A001/2005 of 8.11.2005

2006

A003/2004 of 2.5.2006

A004/2005 of 13.10.2006

A007/2005 of 7.7.2006

2007

A001/2007 of 11.9.2007

A003/2007 and A004/2007 of 21.11.2007

A005/2007, A006/2007 and A007/2007 of 4.12.2007

2008

A011/2007 of 9.9.2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

A009/2008 of 2.12.2008

A001/2008 and A002/2008 of 4.12.2008

A010/2007 of 23.1.2009
A004/2008 and A005/2008 of 21.4.2009

A010/2008 and A011/2008 of 8.10.2009

A018/2008 of 15.3.2010

A001/2010, A005/2010, A006/2010 and A007/2010 of 18.2.2011

A009/2011 of 17.1.2012

A001/2012 of 10.10.2012

A003/2007 and A004/2007 of 20.9.2013 (second decisions for 

the same cases further to remittal from the Court of Justice)

A007/2011 of 23.4.2013

The  detailed  decisions  of  the  Board  of  Appeal  are  available  in  the  plant  variety  rights 
case‑law database of the CPVO website.

ANNUAL REPORT 2013 • APPEAL PROCEDURES

87

18. CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

In  2013  two  meetings  of  the  DG  Health  and  Consumers  Interagency  Task  Force  on 
Conflicts of Interest were held, in March and November.

During the March meeting, DG Health and Consumers introduced a new version of the 
background document on independence/perception of independence and declarations 
of interests for the ECDC, the EFSA, the EMA (4) and the CPVO, with a limited consideration 
given  to  the  latter  insofar  as  the  CPVO  has  no  role  in  risk  assessment.  The  CPVO  had 
nonetheless notified DG Health and Consumers in November 2012 of its guide to missions 
(dealing under Article 12 with gifts or payments offered to staff), Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2100/94 (in particular Articles 47 and 48 thereof, dealing with independence of the 
members of the Board of Appeal) and the CPVO rules on working methods, which address, 
under Article 8, the question of independence of members of staff. The DG Health and 
Consumers background document is to be updated accordingly.

In November 2013, draft guidelines ‘on the prevention and management of conflicts of 
interest in EU decentralised agencies for members of the management board, executive 
directors, experts in scientific committees or other similar bodies and members of boards 
of appeal’ were reviewed. Each of the four abovementioned agencies gave an update on 
their activities in this field.

The CPVO reported that:

•	 there  should  be  increased  transparency  (more  documents  to  be  published  on 
dedicated  areas  of  the  website  and  agreement  to  introduce  a  new  chapter  in  the 
annual report);

•	 the declarations of interests of members of the management will be updated;
•	 potential issues of conflicts of interest raised by examination offices are not measured 
through key performance indicators but addressed on a bilateral basis, pursuant the 
designation  agreement  of  entrusted  examination  offices  and  audit  procedures,  and 
reported to the Administrative Council;

•	 provisions  on  conflicts  of  interest  were  reinforced  in  the  procurement  procedure 

(framework service contract).

(4) 

 This  document  is  meant  to  reflect  the  policies  and  activities  in  the  field  of  independence  and 
prevention of conflicts of interests of the four agencies for which DG Health and Consumers is the 
parent/partner DG: the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European 
Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA),  the  European  Medicines  Agency  (EMA)  and  the  CPVO.  The  main 
chapters  of  that  document  deal  with:  declarations  of  interests,  selection/nomination  of  experts, 
procedure for screening declarations of interests, transparency and data protection, conflicts of inter‑
est policy for staff, annual activity report, monitoring/auditing functions.

88

1
-
N
E
-
1
0
0
-
4
1
-
C
A
-
G
T

•

5
4
8
2
-
0
8
6
1
N
S
S
I

Annual report 2013

3 boulevard Maréchal Foch • CS 10121
49101 ANGERS CEDEX 2 • FRANCE
Tel. +33 (0)2 41 25 64 00 • Fax +33 (0)2 41 25 64 10 
cpvo@cpvo.europa.eu • www.cpvo.europa.eu

Служба на Общността за сортовете растения

Oficina Comunitaria de Variedades Vegetales

Odrůdový úřad Společenství

EF-Sortsmyndigheden

Gemeinschaftliches Sortenamt

Ühenduse Sordiamet

Κοινοτικό Γραφείο Φυτικών Пοικιλιών  

Community Plant Variety Office

Office communautaire des variétés végétales

An Oifig Chomhphobail um Chineálacha Plandaí

Ured Zajednice za zaštitu biljnih sorti

Ufficio comunitario delle varietà vegetali

Kopienas Augu šķirņu birojs 

Bendrijos augalų veislių tarnyba

Közösségi  Növényfatja-hivatal

L-Uffiċju Komunitarju dwar il-Varjetajiet tal-Pjanti

Communautair Bureau voor plantenrassen

Wspólnotowy Urząd Ochrony Odmian

Instituto Comunitário das Variedades Vegetais

Oficiul Comunitar pentru Soiuri de Plante

Úrad Spoločenstva pre odrody rastlín

Urad Skupnosti za rastlinske sorte

Yhteisön kasvilajikevirasto

Gemenskapens växtsortsmyndighet