CELEX: 62015TN0140
Language: en
Date: 2015-03-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-140/15: Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Aurora v CPVO — SES-VanderHave (M 02205)

8.6.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 190/17
            
         Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Aurora v CPVO — SES-VanderHave (M 02205)
   (Case T-140/15)
   (2015/C 190/21)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Aurora Srl (Finale Emilia, Italy) (represented by: L. Buchman, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SES-VanderHave NV/SA (Tienen, Belgium)
   
      Details of the proceedings before CPVO
   
   
      Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No EU 15118, variety denomination M 02205
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 26 November 2014 in Case A10/2013
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare that CPVR No EU 15118 is null and void;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order CPVO to pay the costs, including the cost of any intervening parties.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2100/94;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Misinterpretation of Article 87(4) of Regulation No 2100/94;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of the principle of legal certainty insofar as the conditions of the granted CPVR were retrospectively changed;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement, to a certain extent, of the principle of legitimate expectation;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of the principle of transparency and of the right of public access to documents insofar as the Examination process was not carried out in a transparent manner as the Applicant did not have access to fundamental documents.