Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

8.0.91 Otncial]ournalot the European Communities l ^ o C ^ O ^

Opinionon theproposalfor aCouncilRegulatio^ (EEC) onCommunity plant variety

rights(^)

(91BC^0BloE

On 18 September 1990 the council decided to consult the Economic and social Committee,
under Article 198 of theTreatyestablishing the European Economic Community,on the
abovementioned proposal

The section for Agriculture and Eisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Commit
tee'sworloon the subject, adopted its Opinion on7Decemberl990.The Rapporteur was
^ir^chnieders^

At its ^.8^nd plenary session (meeting of 18 December 1990) the Economic and social
committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.

1. General comments

1.1. The committee welcomes the Commission pro
posal for a Regulation on community plant variety
rights.

1.1.1. In its proposal, the Commission largely
accepted the E^C's Opinion of 1989 on protection of
biotechnological discoveries.

1.^. TheC^ommittee welcomes the factthattheC^om
mission, by consulting all affected groups, has presented
a proposal which takes account of the following
requirements^

a) completion of the single ^iarket^

b) the need for agriculture to respect the environments

c) appropriate protection for plantbreeders'services^

d) stimulus for new varieties^

e) the UPOVsystem(developed by the International
Union forthe Protection of^ewVarietiesofPlants^

U ^ o ^ ^ ^ r ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ r o ^ ^ o ^ ^ O ^ ^
r ^ o ^ V ^ ^ ^ ) .

1.^. TheCommitteenotes thattheCommunity is
involved in the current UPOV negotiations and will try
to ensure that the proposed Regulationaccords with
the definitive te^t of the UPOV Convention.

1.^. The Committee takes the view that the new
rules will provideprotection for the rights of plants
breeders in the C^ommunity,throughasingle proposal
andasingledecision^thisshouldencouragebreeders
to apply for protection covering the entire community
area. This procedure would constitute a great step
forward, since atpresent breeders must apply separately
for plant variety rights for each country.On the other
hand it remains open to breeders to confine themselves

^ O l ^ D e r ^ L ^ . ^ t ^ D L

to an application to the relevant national office if cer^
tainplantvarieties are suitable forcultivationonly in
smaller regions.

IBo. ^ith regard to plant material, the commission
proposal also regulates the relationship between plant
variety rights and patent law to the advantage of plant
variety rights.

1.^. The committee is pleased to note that the welL
tried principle of agricultural exemptions according to
the type of crop and current practice is to be regulated
uniformly in the Community,usingaspecial procedure.
An e^act definition is needed for the application of this
principle, especially for flowers and decorative plants.

1.^.1. In this content it-welcomes the fact that the
arrangement allowed in the territory ofthe former CDR
(abolition of agricultural exemptions) will be subsumed
into common rules when this proposalbecomesfully
effective.

1.7. The committee notes with satisfaction that the
commission intends to publishascale of charges which
should encourage many plantbreeders to apply for
rights in the Community area, and which at the same
time takes account of thefinancial circumstances of
small and mediumsizedplantbreeding enterprises.

^. specific comments

^.L A r r ^ e ^ ^ ^

The Committee would like this provision to take
account of the influence which farming practices, and
especially soil and climate conditions have on the mor
phological and histological features of the individuals
in a ta^on—possibly even causing substantial diver
gences in standards.It is suggested that the phrase^in
similarenvironmental and farming conditions'be added
after ^of its components.

No C 60/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 3. 91

2.2. _Article 10(1)_

The time-limit for new varieties should be extended to
two years, at least for certain varieties, in order to
obtain more plant variety information.

2.3. _Article 12_

The requirement for non-Community nationals to designate a procedural representative carries the risk that
the same requirement may be imposed on Community
nationals in third countries. This would mainly affect
small and medium-sized enterprises. The same applies
the other way round for non-Community enterprises,
whether or not they have subsidiaries in the Community. This risk of unequal treatment arising from
structural causes should be weighed against the administrative need for a national contact.

2.4. _Article 13_

The Committee would like the Article to include a
practical definition of the 'agricultural exemption',
possibly reading as follows:

'The agricultural exemption covers acts of breeding/
reproducing the variety and processing it, carried

Done at Brussels, 18 December 1990.

out by growers who use their agricultural produce
for resowing/replanting their land, regardless of
whether the grower effects these acts himself or as
part of unpaid mutual help between growers in
return for other agricultural services.'

The Committee notes that in the Commission's, view
it is permissible for a grower to have his seed stock
cleaned and sorted by others in return for payment. It
would point out the need to prevent abuse of the
'agricultural exemption'.

2.5. _Article 18_

The Committee would prefer the term of the Community plant variety right not to run in general for 30
or _50_ years. In particular, shorter time-limits should be
possible for varieties on which technical progress is
rapid (e.g. some annual varieties of field-produce, or
fast-growing tree varieties).

2.6. _Article 54_

The Committee wishes to point out expressly that the
concept of Community plant variety rights, together
with the natural character of the protected material,
make it essential for the plant-breeder to have a say in
choosing the Examination Office.

_The Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social Committee_

Francis STAEDELIN