CELEX: 62008TN0133
Language: en
Date: 2008-04-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-133/08: Action brought on 3 April 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Jørn Hansson (Lemon Symphony)

7.6.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 142/31
            
         Action brought on 3 April 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Jørn Hansson (Lemon Symphony)
   (Case T-133/08)
   (2008/C 142/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CPVO: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 007/2007) and declare the adaptation of the variety description for the plant variety Lemon Symphony null and void;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 007/2007);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Community plant variety right concerned: Lemon Symphony
   
      Proprietor of the Community plant variety right: Jørn Hansson
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office which is being contested: Adaptation of a variety description in accordance with Article 87(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1)
   
   
      Appellant before the Board of Appeal: the Applicant
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   Pleas in law:
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 59(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 (2) inasmuch as the applicant was not summoned to the hearing in due form;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 inasmuch as the applicant was unable to present his comments orally or in writing on the absence of locus standi;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 71(1), in conjunction with Article 68, of Regulation No 2100/94, inasmuch as the decision challenged before the Board of Appeal is of direct and individual concern to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 230 EC inasmuch as the applicant's right to judicial review of administrative action has been infringed;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 48 of Regulation No 2100/94 inasmuch as a member of the Board of Appeal allegedly had an interest in the proceedings.
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).
   
      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office (OJ 1995 L 121, p. 37).