Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Freistaat Thüringen.
Date: 2019-10-17
23


As the Court has previously pointed out, the provisions of Article 14 of the basic regulation, which, as is clear from the 17th and 18th recitals thereof, were adopted on the basis of the public interest in safeguarding agricultural production, constitute an exception to that rule (judgments of 10 April 2003, Schulin, C‑305/00, EU:C:2003:218, paragraph 47, and of 14 October 2004, Brangewitz, C‑336/02, EU:C:2004:622, paragraph 37).
30


It should be borne in mind that it follows from settled case-law that, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to have recourse not only to its wording but also to the context in which it is used, taking into account the scheme and objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 19 October 2017, Vion Livestock, C‑383/16, EU:C:2017:783, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
39


To that end, Articles 8, 9 and 11 of Regulation No 1768/95 authorise the holder to make a request to the farmer, the supplier of processing services or an official body, respectively, seeking to obtain any relevant information for the sole purpose of preserving his industrial-property rights, which, as noted in paragraph 33 of this judgment, can relate only to varieties and not more generally to species (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 October 2004, Brangewitz, C‑336/02, EU:C:2004:622, paragraphs 53 and 61).
40


In this respect, to interpret Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1768/95 as meaning that every holder is in a position to request information from an official body on the planting undertaken by farmers, even if they have never used, or have never had the intention of using, protected varieties pursuant to Article 14(1) of the basic regulation would go beyond what is necessary in order to safeguard the legitimate interests of the breeder (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 April 2003, Schulin, C‑305/00, EU:C:2003:218, paragraph 57).
47


In that regard, the Court has held, first, as regards requests which may be made to a farmer, that the holder is authorised to request information from a farmer, pursuant to Article 8, only if he has some indication, such as the acquisition of propagating material of a protected plant variety of the holder, of past or future use of the derogation provided for in Article 14(1) of the basic regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 April 2003, Schulin, C‑305/00, EU:C:2003:218, paragraphs 63 and 65).
48


Second, as regards requests made to a supplier of processing services, the Court has held that, once the holder has an indication that the supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by the farmer by planting propagating material of a variety of the holder for planting, such a supplier is required to provide the holder with the relevant information relating not only to the farmers for whom the holder has some indication that the processor has provided or intends to provide such services but also to all other farmers for whom he has provided or intends to provide them, where the variety in question has been declared or is otherwise known to him (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 October 2004, Brangewitz, C‑336/02, EU:C:2004:622, paragraph 65).