natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Der skal indledningsvis erindres om, at sagsøgeren på forhandlingsmødet for appelkammeret principalt fremsatte begæring om udsættelse for at forberede en fuldstændig dokumentation for, at forbundets medlemmer var umiddelbart og individuelt
First of all, it should be borne in mind that the applicant applied to the Board of Appeal, principally, for an adjournment to permit it to prepare and submit at a later date to the Board of Appeal a complete set of documents establishing that
Subsidiært fremsatte sagsøgeren begæring om tilladelse til på forhandlingsmødet at fremlægge den ufuldstændige dokumentation, som dens repræsentanter havde medbragt, der bestod i fuldmagter til på vegne af individuelle producenter at indgive klage over tildelingsafgørelsen og en kontrakt mellem kooperativet Anecoop og Geslive om betaling af vederlag for udnyttelsen af sorten Nadorcott.
In the alternative, it applied for leave to produce at the hearing the incomplete set of documents which its representatives had brought with them, including powers of attorney entitling the applicant to bring an appeal on behalf of individual growers and a contract between the Anecoop cooperative and Geslive concerning the payment of royalties for cultivation of the Nadorcott variety.
Hvad for det første angår den påståede tilsidesættelse af gennemførelsesforordningens artikel 50, skal det påpeges, at bestemmelsens stk. 1 og 2 foreskriver en hurtig afvikling af klagesager ved en mundtlig forhandling, som der indkaldes til hurtigst muligt, og som foregår på ét og samme forhandlingsmøde.
With regard, first, to the alleged infringement of Article 50 of the implementing regulation, it should be pointed out that Article 50(1) and (2) provide for a rapid disposal of disputes by means of oral proceedings to which the parties are to be summoned without delay and which are to be held in one hearing.
Det følger af samme artikels stk. 3, at en part kun kan fremsætte begæring om yderligere forhandlingsmøder, når dette er nødvendigt på grund af ændrede omstændigheder, der er indtrådt under eller efter forhandlingsmødet.
It is clear from Article 50(3) that a party may request a further hearing only where it is made necessary by a change in circumstances which occurred during or after the hearing.
Det skal i den forbindelse først og fremmest fastslås, at de dokumenter, som sagsøgeren agtede at fremlægge, ikke er begrundet i omstændigheder, som har ændret sig under eller efter forhandlingsmødet.
It must be stated, first of all, that the documents which the applicant wished to produce were not based on circumstances which had undergone change during or after the hearing.
Kontrakten og de fuldmagter, som sagsøgeren ville fremlægge på forhandlingsmødet, er helt klart dokumenter, der forelå inden det nævnte forhandlingsmøde.
The contract and the powers of attorney which the applicant wished to submit at the hearing are obviously documents which had been drawn up before that hearing.
Under alle omstændigheder kan hverken disse dokumenter eller de supplerende fuldmagter, som sagsøgeren ønskede at fremlægge efter forhandlingsmødet, anses for at udgøre ændrede omstændigheder i sagen.
In any event, neither those documents nor the additional powers of attorney which the applicant wished to produce after the hearing can be regarded as revealing a change in the facts of the case.
EF-Sortsmyndigheden og intervenienten har med rette påpeget for det første, at sagsøgeren indgav klagen i eget navn, hvilket forbundet ikke under sagens behandling kan udskifte med andre personer, som ikke har indgivet klage inden for de fastsatte frister.
The CPVO and the intervener rightly point out that the applicant brought the appeal in its own name and cannot be substituted, during the course of the proceedings, by other persons who did not bring an appeal within the prescribed time-limits.
For det andet bidrager kontrakten ikke med nye oplysninger, fordi, som appelkammeret har påpeget, den blot understreger, at individuelle mandarinproducenter og eventuelt Anecoop skal betale vederlag for levering og brug af den beskyttede sort. Denne forpligtelse følger imidlertid direkte af sortsbeskyttelsessystemet og blev lagt uprøvet til grund af appelkammeret.
In addition, the contract does not reveal any new fact since, as the Board of Appeal pointed out, it merely stresses the fact that individual mandarin growers and, as the case may be, Anecoop, must pay royalties for the supply and use of the protected variety.
For det andet bemærkes, at selv om det påståede bevismateriale måtte være relevant, havde sagsøgeren en frist på flere måneder mellem indgivelsen af intervenientens og EF-Sortsmyndighedens indlæg og forhandlingsmødet.
Secondly, even supposing that the alleged evidence was relevant, the applicant had several months between the time at which the intervener and the CPVO lodged their statements and the hearing.
Sagsøgeren havde i denne periode lejlighed til at indsamle og fremsende dokumenterne, eller i det mindste anmode appelkammeret om at beramme forhandlingsmødet således, at alle bevismidler kunne behandles i ét og samme forhandlingsmøde.
During that period, it could have drawn up and transmitted the documents or, at the very least, applied to the Board of Appeal for an adjournment so that all the evidence could be considered at a single hearing.
Der er således intet, der taler imod, at bevisoptagelsen kunne have foregået i ét og samme forhandlingsmøde, hvis sagsøgeren havde udvist den fornødne påpasselighed vedrørende forberedelsen af forhandlingsmødet.
There is nothing to indicate that, if the applicant had shown due diligence in preparing for the hearing, the taking of evidence could not have been completed in a single hearing.
Det følger heraf, at da der efter sagens omstændigheder ikke er grundlag for at afholde et yderligere forhandlingsmøde i henhold til gennemførelsesforordningens artikel 50, har appelkammeret ikke tilsidesat denne bestemmelse ved at afslå sagsøgerens begæringer.
It follows that, since the circumstances of the case do not fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 50 of the implementing regulation for the holding of a further hearing, the Board of Appeal did not infringe that provision when it rejected the applicant’s requests.
Hvad for det andet angår den påståede tilsidesættelse af principperne om påpasselighed og om god forvaltningsskik skal det bemærkes, at sagsøgeren ikke har fremført andre omstændigheder, der indebærer en tilsidesættelse af disse principper, end at appelkammeret ikke har tilladt fremlæggelse af de bevismidler, som sagsøgerens repræsentanter havde medbragt på forhandlingsmødet, eller som den ønskede at fremlægge senere.
Secondly, with regard to the alleged infringement of the principle of due care and attention and the principle of sound administration, it should be noted that the applicant has failed to adduce any evidence establishing an infringement of those principles other than the fact that the Board of Appeal did not permit the applicant to submit the evidence which the applicant’s representatives had brought to the hearing or which they wished to draw up at a later date.
Det fremgår af det foregående, at appelkammeret ikke er forpligtet efter gennemførelsesforordningens artikel 50 til at tillade parterne at fremlægge alle de bevismidler, som de finder nødvendige.
It follows that Article 50 of the implementing regulation did not require the Board of Appeal to permit the parties to submit all the evidence which they considered necessary.
Tværtimod skal appelkammeret af hensyn til en god forvaltning ifølge bestemmelsen alene tillade bevismidler, der kræver afholdelse af et yderligere forhandlingsmøde, hvis det drejer sig om relevante elementer begrundet i omstændigheder, der har ændret sig under eller efter forhandlingsmødet.
On the contrary, in the interests of sound administration, the Board of Appeal must, in accordance with that provision, accept evidence which requires a further hearing to be held only when it is relevant evidence based on circumstances which have undergone change during or after the hearing.
Det er ligeledes blevet fastslået, at det i denne sag ikke er påvist, at de beviser, som sagsøgeren ønsker, at appelkammeret skal tage stilling til, er begrundet i omstændigheder, som har ændret sig under eller efter forhandlingsmødet (jf. præmis 51 ovenfor).
It has also been pointed out that, in this case, it has not been established that the evidence which the applicant wished the Board of Appeal to consider was based on circumstances which had undergone change during or after the hearing (see paragraph 51 above).
Endvidere er de tilbudte beviser ikke relevante for sagen (jf. præmis
In addition, the evidence offered was not relevant to the case (see
Under disse omstændigheder er gennemførelsesforordningens artikel 50 til hinder for, at beviserne tillades fremlagt.
Under those circumstances, the terms of Article 50 of the implementing regulation precluded the admission of such evidence.
Det følger heraf, at appelkammeret ikke har tilsidesat principperne om påpasselighed og om god forvaltningsskik ved ikke at tillade fremlæggelse af disse beviser.
It follows that the Board of Appeal could not have infringed the principle of due care and attention and the principle of sound administration when it refused to accept such evidence.
Følgelig må det andet led forkastes.
Consequently, the second branch must be rejected.
Det følger af det anførte, at det første anbringende forkastes.
It follows from the foregoing that the first plea in law must be rejected.
Det andet anbringende klageberettigelse
The second plea in law: error on the part of the Board of Appeal concerning the applicant’s locus standi
Det andet anbringende består af to led vedrørende dels, at sagsøgeren samt dennes medlemmer er individuelt berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen, dels en påstået mangel på effektiv domstolsbeskyttelse.
The second plea in law is divided into two branches, the first of which submits that the applicant and its members are individually concerned by the decision granting the plant variety right and the second of which alleges a failure to provide effective judicial protection.
Det første led om, at sagsøgeren og dennes medlemmer er individuelt berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen
The first branch: the submission that the applicant and its members are individually concerned by the decision granting the plant variety right
For det første har sagsøgeren kritiseret appelkammeret for at fokusere på den omstændighed, at sagsøgeren er et forbund og have set bort fra dens medlemmers
First of all, the applicant complains that the Board of Appeal focused on the fact that the applicant is an association and overlooked the locus standi of its members.
Det skal ikke kun prøves, om sagsøgeren selv er berettiget til at klage over tildelingsafgørelsen, men det burde også have været prøvet, om sagsøgerens medlemmer eller medlemmernes medlemmer (i nærværende sag Copal de Algemesi, medlem af Anecoop) er klageberettigede.
Consideration should not be given exclusively to whether the applicant itself had locus standi in regard to the decision granting the plant variety right but should also be given to whether its members or its members’ members (in this case, Copal de Algemesi, a member of Anecoop) had locus standi.
I den anfægtede afgørelse tog appelkammeret imidlertid ikke hensyn til Rettens praksis, hvorefter virksomhedssammenslutninger også har kompetence til at nedlægge påstand om annullation af retsakter, når deres medlemmer individuelt kan anlægge annullationssøgsmål.
However, in the contested decision, the Board of Appeal did not take account of the Court’s caselaw to the effect that associations of undertakings are also entitled to apply for the annulment of measures if their members could have so applied individually.
For det andet har sagsøgeren anført, at appelkammeret uretmæssigt har gjort sagsøgerens klageberettigelse afhængig af, at alle sagsøgerens medlemmer var klageberettigede.
Secondly, the applicant takes the view that the Board of Appeal was wrong to make recognition of its locus standi subject to recognition of the locus standi of all its members.
Appelkammeret har således lagt vægt på, at kun visse af sagsøgerens medlemmer er berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen i deres egenskab af producenter, mens andre ikke er berørt. I henhold til retspraksis har imidlertid sammenslutninger med mindst et medlem, der selv har kompetence til at anlægge sag, søgsmålskompetence.
Thus, the Board of Appeal attached importance to the fact that only some of the applicant’s members are concerned by the decision granting the plant variety right in their capacity as growers whereas others may well not be concerned.
For det tredje har sagsøgeren bestridt appelkammerets opfattelse vedrørende spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt sagsøgeren reelt repræsenterer de omhandlede producenters almindelige interesser.
Thirdly, the applicant contests the Board of Appeal’s opinion on the question whether the applicant really represents the general interests of the growers concerned.
Appelkammeret har ifølge sagsøgeren overset det forhold, at sagsøgeren gjorde indsigelse mod sortsbeskyttelsen af Nadorcott på vegne af alle de producenter, der er medlemmer af kooperativerne, da forbundet i overensstemmelse med artikel 2, litra a), i sine vedtægter repræsenterer alle foreninger af kooperativer, der ikke har rejst indvendinger imod indgivelse af klagen, og som selv repræsenterer kooperativerne.
In the applicant’s view, the Board of Appeal failed to take account of the fact that it contested the protection granted to the Nadorcott variety on behalf of all the growers who are members of the cooperatives since, according to Article 2(a) of its statutes, it represents the unions of cooperatives, which did not express any objection to the appeal at issue and which themselves represent the cooperatives.
Det fremgår endvidere af retspraksis, at samtlige medlemmer af en sammenslutning formodes at have bemyndiget sammenslutningen til at handle på deres vegne, hvis dette fremgår af vedtægterne, og hvis medlemmerne ikke har rejst indvendinger herimod.
In addition, it follows from the caselaw that all the members of an association are deemed to have authorised that association to act in their name if the statutes so provide and if the members have raised no objection.
For det fjerde har sagsøgeren anført, at appelkammeret begik en fejl ved at fastslå, at tildelingsafgørelsen ikke berører sagsøgeren individuelt, eftersom forbundet ikke har visse egenskaber, som er særlige for det, eller at det er i en faktisk situation, der adskiller det fra alle andre.
Fourthly, the applicant considers that the Board of Appeal erred in deciding that the decision granting the plant variety right did not concern it individually on the ground that it did not possess certain attributes which are specific to it and is not in a situation in which it is differentiated from all other persons.
Det fremgår af retspraksis, at denne betingelse er opfyldt, når en virksomheds retsstilling påvirkes af den anfægtede retsakt på grund af visse
It is clear from the caselaw that that condition is fulfilled when the legal position of the undertaking in
FEDERACIÓN DE COOPERATIVAS AGRARIAS DE LA COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA MOD CPVO — NADOR COTT PROTECTION (NADORCOTT) egenskaber, som er særlige for virksomheden, eller på grund af en faktisk situation, der adskiller den fra alle andre og individualiserer den på lignende måde som en retsakts adressat.
FEDERACIÓN DE COOPERATIVAS AGRARIAS DE LA COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA v CPVO — NADOR COTT PROTECTION (NADORCOTT) question is affected by the contested measure by reason of certain attributes which are specific to it, or by reason of circumstances in which it is differentiated from all other persons, and by virtue of these factors is distinguished individually in the same way as the addressee of the decision.
Det forhold, at retsakten frembringer virkninger i forhold til samtlige berørte erhvervsdrivende, er ikke til hinder for, at der iblandt dem kan være nogle, der er individuelt berørte.
The fact that the measure produces effects in regard to all the traders concerned does not prevent the measure in question from being of individual concern to some of them.
Hvad for det første angår sagsøgerens egenskab af leverandør af plantemateriale er virkningen af tildelingsafgørelsen, at alle, der ønsker at deltage i reproduktionen eller leveringen af plantemateriale, skal være i besiddelse af en licens, udstedt af indehaveren.
First of all, with regard to the applicant’s capacity as a supplier of plant material, the consequence of the decision granting the right is that any person wishing to be involved in the reproduction or supply of plant material must be in possession of a licence granted by the holder of the plant variety right.
Det skal derfor undersøges, om sagsøgerens medlemmers retsstilling er påvirket anderledes end andre reproducenter og leverandører af plantemateriale.
As a result, it is necessary to consider whether the legal position of the applicant’s members is affected in a manner different from that of other reproducers or suppliers of plant material.
Tildelingsafgørelsen har imidlertid tvunget visse af sagsøgerens medlemmer, der leverer sorten Nadorcott, til at indstille leveringen, til stor skade for de pågældende, hvilket adskiller dem fra andre leverandører af plantemateriale.
The decision granting the plant variety right has caused some of the applicant’s members supplying the Nadorcott variety to cease doing so, resulting in significant damage, and that distinguishes them individually from all other suppliers of plant material.
Selv om appelkammeret i den anfægtede afgørelse omtalte, at Anecoop leverer dette materiale, udelod det efterfølgende denne oplysning og fokuserede på det forhold, at sagsøgeren ikke selv leverede plantemateriale.
Although the Board of Appeal mentions in the contested decision that Anecoop provides such plant material, it omitted that fact subsequently and focused on the fact that the applicant did not itself supply plant material.
En undersøgelse af Anecoops forhold ville imidlertid have vist, at sagsøgeren var klageberettiget i forhold til at kræve tildelingsafgørelsen annulleret.
However, consideration of Anecoop’s situation would have shown that the applicant had locus standi to seek annulment of the decision granting the plant variety right.
Hvad for det andet angår sagsøgerens egenskab af producent har sagsøgeren mindet om, at forbundet ikke har påstået at repræsentere producenternes almindelige interesser til støtte for påstanden om, at den er individuelt berørt.
Secondly, with regard to its capacity as a grower, the applicant stresses that it did not claim to represent the general interests of growers in support of its claim to be individually concerned.
Sagsøgeren har tværtimod anført, at forbundet er klageberettiget, fordi det repræsenterer interesserne for de medlemmer, der er umiddelbart berørt i deres egenskab af producenter.
On the other hand, the applicant considers that it has locus standi because it represents the interests of members who are directly affected in their capacity as growers.
Sagsøgeren har påpeget, at eftersom 90% af de selskaber, der behandler sorten Nadorcott, er etableret i Valencia, kan det ikke med rimelighed antages, at tildelingsafgørelsen har samme virkninger for sagsøgeren som for andre forbund af producenter og kooperativer i Fællesskabet.
The applicant points out that, since 90% of the companies which prepare the Nadorcott variety are established in Valencia, it is impossible to contend that the decision to grant the plant variety right has the same effects on it as on other federations of growers or cooperatives in the Community.
De omhandlede kooperativer distribuerer nemlig over halvdelen af citrusfrugterne fra Valencia, og da de næsten alle sammen er med i sagsøgerens forbund, er hovedparten af de personer, der er berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen, at finde blandt sagsøgerens medlemmer.
The cooperatives concerned distribute more than half of the citrus fruit originating in Valencia and, as the applicant’s membership includes almost all of those cooperatives, its members are among the persons primarily affected by the decision to grant the plant variety right.
Da så godt som hele produktionen af Nadorcottsorten kommer fra Valencia, indebærer den omstændighed, at tildelingsafgørelsen har den virkning, at alle producenter i Fællesskabet skal betale vederlag for at dyrke sorten Nadorcott, at uden betaling af dette vederlag ville næsten hele produktionen i Valencia være ulovlig. Alene disse producenter ville nemlig være forpligtet til at betale den, der har frembragt sorten, vederlag eller destruere sine planter, hvilket ville påvirke deres konkurrencemæssige situation på markedet på tidspunktet for markedsføringen.
Since almost all of the production of the Nadorcott variety originates in Valencia, the fact that the consequence of the decision granting the plant variety right is that all growers in the Community must pay royalties in order to grow the Nadorcott variety implies that, if such royalties are not paid, practically all of Valencia’s production would be unlawful.
Det vil derfor være ukorrekt at hævde, at tildelingsafgørelsen påvirker sagsøgerens medlemmer på samme måde som alle andre producenter, der fremover vil dyrke den omhandlede sort, da sagsøgerens medlemmer tværtimod kan fremvise en række karakteristika, der adskiller dem fra de øvrige producenter.
It is thus incorrect to state that the decision granting the plant variety right affects the applicant’s members in the same way as any other grower who will cultivate the variety at issue in the future since its members possess a series of attributes which distinguish them from all other growers.
For det tredje har sagsøgeren anført, at forbundets medlemmer har samme karakteristika som selskabet Van Zanten Plants (herefter »Van Zanten«), der har indgivet en klage til appelkammeret (sagerne A 005/2003 og A 006/2003).
Thirdly, the applicant considers that its members have the same characteristics as the company Van Zanten Plants (‘Van Zanten’), which brought an appeal before the Board of Appeal (Cases A 005/2003 and A 006/2003).
Van Zanten var distributør af en sortsbeskyttet plante på verdensplan, der efter virksomhedens opfattelse havde lighedspunkter med en ny sort, som EF-Sortsmyndigheden havde meddelt fællesskabsbeskyttelse, og appelkammeret havde anerkendt virksomhedens klageberettigelse.
Since Van Zanten was the worldwide distributor for a protected variety which, in its view, was similar to a new variety in respect of which the CPVO had granted a Community plant variety right, the Board of Appeal recognised it as having locus standi.
Det var nemlig appelkammerets opfattelse, at der ville opstå usikkerhed på markederne, hvis sorterne virkelig var ens, og derfor ville Van Zanten være tvunget til at forsvare sine rettigheder ved at rejse sager vedrørende krænkelse af en varemærkeret.
The Board of Appeal took the view that there would be confusion on the markets if the similarity of the varieties was shown to exist and that, therefore, Van Zanten would be forced to defend its rights by bringing actions for infringement.
Sagsøgeren har anført, at der i denne sag er tale om en tilsvarende situation, eftersom tildelingsafgørelsen tvinger sagsøgerens medlemmer til trække deres planter op, hvis de ikke accepterer intervenientens økonomiske byrdefulde betingelser.
The applicant considers that the situation is similar in this case since the decision granting the right forces its members to uproot all their plants if they do not accept the costly conditions imposed by the intervener.
Da sagsøgeren er repræsentant for virksomheder, der leverer materiale af sorten Afourer, en konkurrerende sort til Nadarcott, er forbundet individuelt berørt i begge tilfælde i kraft af sin egenskab af konkurrent til den virksomhed, der anmoder om beskyttelse.
Since the applicant is the representative of undertakings which supply material of the Afourer variety, which is a competitor of the Nadorcott variety, it is individually affected inasmuch as, in both cases, it is a competitor of the undertaking seeking protection.