natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Følgelig vil en fortolkning som af sagsøgeren påberåbt berøve proceduren sin effektivitet, mens en fortolkning som anlagt i dommen i sagen Plaumann mod Kommissionen vil tilskynde enhver interesseret person til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger under den administrative godkendelsesprocedure.
Consequently, the interpretation put forward by the applicant would undermine the usefulness of such a procedure, whereas an interpretation such as that adopted in the judgment in Plaumann v Commission would encourage persons concerned to submit their observations during the administrative procedure for the grant of the right.
Retten finder på baggrund af det ovenstående, at der med henblik på afgørelsen af, om en person er individuelt berørt i basisforordningens artikel 68’s forstand, skal tages udgangspunkt i dommen i sagen Plaumann mod Kommissionen.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court takes the view that reference should be made to Plaumann v Commission in order to determine whether a person is individually concerned within the meaning of Article 68 of the basic regulation.
Det følger af det ovenstående, at sagsøgeren skal være berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen på grund af visse egenskaber, som er særlige for ham, eller en faktisk situation, der adskiller ham fra alle andre og derfor individualiserer ham på lignende måde som afgørelsens adressat (jf. dommen i sagen Plaumann mod Kommissionen).
It follows that the applicant must be affected by the decision granting the plant variety right by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to it or by reason of circumstances in which it is differentiated from all other persons and distinguished individually just as in the case of the person addressed (Plaumann v Commission).
I denne forbindelse fremgår det af retspraksis, at et annullationssøgsmål anlagt af en branchesammenslutning, som er oprettet for at varetage og repræsentere dens medlemmers interesser, kan antages til realitetsbehandling, for det første når den er individualiseret, fordi dens egne interesser som sammenslutning er berørt, navnlig fordi dens forhandlerposition er blevet berørt ved den retsakt, som påstås annulleret, for det andet når den repræsenterer interesser hos virksomheder, som selv har søgsmålskompetence, og for det tredje når en retsforskrift udtrykkeligt indrømmer den en række processuelle rettigheder (jf. Rettens kendelse af 13.12.2005, sag T-381/02, Confédération générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels de roquefort mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 5337, præmis 54 og den deri nævnte retspraksis).
It is in that regard clear from the caselaw that a professional association set up to protect and represent the interests of its members has standing to bring an action for annulment, firstly, where the association is differentiated by reason of the adverse impact on its own interests as an association, in particular because its position as a negotiator has been affected by the measure of which the annulment is sought, secondly, where the association represents the interests of undertakings which themselves have locus standi and, thirdly, where a legal provision expressly confers upon it a number of powers of a procedural nature (order in Case T-381/02 Confédération générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels de Roquefort v Commission [2005] ECR II-5337, paragraph 54 and the caselaw cited therein).
Hvad for det første angår spørgsmålet, om sagsøgerens egne interesser er berørt, skal det indledningsvis bemærkes, at forbundet ikke gør gældende selv at være producent eller leverandør af plantemateriale.
In the first place, with regard to adverse impact on the applicant’s own interests, it must first be noted that it does not claim to be itself a grower or a supplier of plant material.
For det andet har sagsøgeren ikke gjort gældende at være indehaver af beskyttede subjektive rettigheder, der er registreret nationalt eller på fællesskabsniveau.
Secondly, the applicant does not claim to be the holder of subjective rights registered at national or Community level which enjoy protection.
Sagsøgeren er dermed ikke berørt som rettighedsindehaver og befinder sig ikke i en situation, der en sammenlignelig med Van Zantens.
It follows that it is not affected as the holder of rights and is not in a situation comparable to that of Van Zanten.
For det tredje må det vedrørende sagsøgerens klagepunkt om, at forbundets forhandlerposition er berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen, konstateres, at det ikke har underbygget sin påstand.
Thirdly, in so far as it argues the point, the applicant has produced no evidence in support of the allegation that its position as a negotiator has been affected by the decision granting the right.
Eftersom det fremgår af det foregående, at de af sagsøgeren påberåbte omstændigheder ikke godtgør, at sagsøgerens egne interesser er berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen, er det endelig uden betydning at undersøge spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt sagsøgeren befinder sig i en anden situation end andre lignende forbund i Fællesskabet.
Finally, since it follows from the foregoing that the circumstances relied on by the applicant do not establish that its own interests have been affected by the decision granting the right, the question of the extent to which the applicant is differentiated from other similar federations in the Community is irrelevant.
Under alle omstændigheder er det forhold, at 90% af de selskaber, der behandler den omtvistede sort, ifølge sagsøgeren er etableret i Valencia, ikke i sig selv tilstrækkeligt til at adskille sagsøgeren fra andre forbund i forhold til tildelingsafgørelsen.
In any event, the mere fact that, according to the applicant, 90% of the companies which process and package the variety at issue are established in Valencia does not enable the applicant to be distinguished from other federations with regard to the grant of the plant variety right.
Det er ikke tilstrækkeligt, at en foranstaltning har større økonomiske følger for nogle operatører end for andre operatører på området, for at førstnævnte kan anses for individuelt berørte af foranstaltningen (jf. i denne retning Rettens kendelse af 23.11.1999, sag T-173/98, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores mod Rådet, Sml. II, s. 3357, præmis 50, og retspraksis nævnt i præmis 102 og 103 nedenfor).
It is not sufficient that a measure should have greater economic consequences for some traders than for others in the sector in order for the former to be regarded as individually affected by the measure (see, to that effect, the order in Case T-173/98 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [1999] ECR II-3357, paragraph 50, and the caselaw cited in paragraphs 102 and 103 below).
Hvad for det andet angår det tilfælde, at sagsøgeren måtte repræsentere virksomheder, der selv har søgsmålskompetence, må der tages stilling til, dels om sagsøgeren ifølge sine vedtægter repræsenterer sine medlemmers interesser under klagen ved appelkammeret, dels om disse medlemmer er søgsmålsberettigede (jf. i denne retning kendelsen i sagen Confédération générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels de roquefort mod Kommissionen, præmis 61).
In the second place, with regard to the hypothesis that the applicant represents the interests of undertakings which have locus standi, it is necessary to establish, on the one hand, whether, according to its statutes, the applicant represents the interests of its members in the context of the appeal before the Board of Appeal and, on the other, whether they would have locus standi (see, to that effect, Confédération générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels de Roquefort v Commission, paragraph 61).
Hvad angår sagsøgerens medlemmer og deres interesser skal der indledningsvis erindres om, at disse medlemmer i medfør af artikel 4 i sagsøgerens vedtægter kan være foreninger af landbrugskooperativer i provinserne Alicante, Castellón og Valencia, der opfylder visse kriterier.
Firstly, with regard to the applicant’s members and their interests, it should be pointed out that, according to Article 4 of its statutes, unions of cooperatives in the provinces of Alicante, Castellón and Valencia which meet certain criteria may be members of the applicant.
Det følger endvidere af artikel 2 i sagsøgerens vedtægter, at sagsøgeren repræsenterer sine medlemmer.
It also follows from Article 2 of its statutes that the applicant represents its members.
Sagsøgeren kan følgelig repræsentere interesserne hos foreninger af landbrugskooperativer, der er sagsøgerens medlemmer.
Consequently, the applicant may represent the interests of the unions of cooperatives which are its members.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet, om sagsøgerens medlemmer ville være klageberettigede, må det konstateres, at sagsøgeren hverken for appelkammeret eller for retten har fremlagt beviser, der godtgør, at de pågældende var individuelt berørte af tildelingsafgørelsen.
With regard to the question whether the applicant’s members have locus standi, it must be stated that the applicant did not produce, either before the Board of Appeal or the Court, any evidence establishing that those members were individually affected by the decision granting the right.
I den forbindelse erindres om, at det drejer sig om foreninger af landbrugskooperativer, der ikke selv producerer mandariner, men som har til formål at varetage interesserne for deres egne medlemmer, landbrugskooperativerne.
It should in this regard be borne in mind that those members are unions of cooperatives which do not themselves grow mandarins but which have the task of defending the general interests of their own members, the agricultural cooperatives.
Selv om sagsøgeren i sit skriftlige indlæg har anført, at kooperativet Anecoop er blandt forbundets medlemmer og leverer plantemateriale til producenterne, har sagsøgeren i retsmødet erkendt, at Anecoop ikke er medlem af sagsøgeren, men medlem af en forening af landbrugskooperativer, der selv er medlem af sagsøgeren.
Although the applicant claimed in its written pleadings that the Anecoop cooperative is one of its members and supplies plant material to growers, it admitted at the hearing that Anecoop was not one of its members but a member of a union of cooperatives which was itself one of the applicant’s members.
Sagsøgeren har endvidere ikke frembragt forhold, der godtgør, at tildelingsafgørelsen berørte denne leverandør anderledes end alle andre leverandører af plantemateriale.
Moreover, it produced no evidence capable of establishing that the effect of the decision granting the right on that supplier was different from the effect on any other supplier of plant material.
Det må derfor konstateres, at Anecoop kun er berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen som følge af en objektiv faktisk omstændighed, der ikke adskiller kooperativet fra andre leverandører af plantematerialet på området.
Consequently, it must be concluded that Anecoop is concerned by the decision granting the right only by reason of an objective situation in which it is not differentiated from other suppliers of plant material in the sector.
Det bemærkes ligeledes, at sagsøgeren ikke har fremlagt nogen beviser, der godtgør, at forbundets medlemmer befandt sig i en situation, der er sammenlignelig med Van Zantens, eller at de deltog i proceduren for tildeling af sortsbeskyttelse.
It must also be pointed out that the applicant has produced no evidence that its members are in a comparable situation to that of Van Zanten or that they could have taken part in the procedure leading to the grant of the plant variety right.
Sagsøgeren har derfor ikke påvist, at forbundets medlemmer ville være berettigede til at indgive klage til appelkammeret over tildelingsafgørelsen.
The applicant has thus failed to establish that its members would have had locus standi to lodge an appeal before the Board of Appeal against the decision granting the right.
For det andet, og for så vidt som sagsøgeren tillige har henvist til, at individuelle mandarinavlere, der er medlemmer af kooperativer, som igen er medlemmer af foreninger af kooperativer, der selv er medlemmer af sagsøgeren, også er berørte, bemærkes, at hverken kooperativerne selv eller de individuelle mandarinproducenter ifølge artikel 4 i sagsøgerens vedtægter kan være medlemmer af sagsøgeren.
Secondly, in so far as the applicant also refers to the effect on individual mandarin growers who are members of the cooperatives which are members of the unions of cooperatives which are, in their turn, members of the applicant, it must be pointed out that, in accordance with Article 4 of its statutes, neither the cooperatives themselves nor the individual mandarin growers can be members of the applicant.
Det fremgår endvidere af artikel 2 i de nævnte vedtægter, at sagsøgerens formål er begrænset til fremme af forbundets medlemmers interesser.
In addition, it follows from Article 2 of those statutes that the purpose of the applicant is solely the advancement of its members’ interests.
Det fremgår således ikke af sagsøgerens vedtægter, at forbundet er bemyndiget til at anlægge sager ved domstolene for at forsvare visse bestemte mandarinproducenters interesser, der er
Thus, the applicant’s statutes do not indicate that it is entitled to bring legal proceedings to defend the interests of
For så vidt som sagsøgeren mener, at det følger af i Spanien gældende love og dekreter, at forbundet er beføjet til at repræsentere sine medlemmers medlemmer, bemærkes, at sagsøgeren først har gjort dette argument gældende for Retten, og at disse love og dekreter ikke figurerer blandt sagens akter.
In so far as the applicant considers that it follows from laws and decrees in force in Spain that it is entitled to represent its members’ members, it must be pointed out that it put forward that argument for the first time at the hearing before the Court and that those laws and decrees are not on the case-file.
Endvidere har EF-Sortsmyndigheden med rette bemærket, at interesserne for foreningerne af kooperativer, som sagsøgeren i henhold til artikel 2 i sine vedtægter kan repræsentere, ikke kan formodes at være identiske med visse individuelle producenters interesser.
Moreover, the CPVO rightly points out that the interests of the unions of cooperatives which, according to Article 2 of its statutes, the applicant may represent cannot be presumed to be identical to those of certain individual growers.
Sagsøgeren har i den forbindelse bestridt appelkammerets krav om, at alle forbundets medlemmer skulle være klageberettigede, da det fremgår af retspraksis, at sammenslutninger med mindst et medlem, der selv har søgsmålskompetence, er kompetente til at rejse en klagesag.
In that context, the applicant complains that the Board of Appeal required that all its members should have locus standi, whereas it follows from the caselaw that associations of which at least one member could itself validly bring the action have locus standi.
Det bemærkes i den forbindelse, at appelkammeret undersøgte, om de individuelle producenter var berørt, med henblik på at fastlægge, om de alle havde fælles interesser, som sagsøgeren eventuelt kunne varetage i henhold til sine vedtægter.
It must be pointed out in this regard that the Board of Appeal examined whether the individual growers were affected in order to determine if they all had a common interest that the applicant might possibly defend on the basis of its statutes.
Efter at have fundet, at dette ikke var tilfældet, fordi producenterne kan have forskellige interesser, begrænsede appelkammeret sig til blot at udtale, at det var i tvivl med hensyn til, om sagsøgeren repræsenterer producenternes almindelige interesser som kategori.
Since it considered that that was not the case, inasmuch as the interests of the growers could differ, the Board of Appeal merely pointed out that there were doubts as to whether the applicant represented a general interest of the growers as a category.
Følgelig må det, modsat det af sagsøgeren anførte, konstateres, at appelkammeret ikke krævede, at alle sagsøgerens medlemmer var klageberettigede.
Consequently, it must be held that, contrary to the applicant’s argument, the Board of Appeal did not require all the applicant’s members to have locus standi.
Endelig skal der også erindres om, at sagsøgeren indgav klagen i eget navn og ikke på vegne af bestemte mandarinproducenter.
Finally, it must also be pointed out that the applicant lodged the appeal in its own name and not in that of specific mandarin growers.
Det må derfor fastslås, at sagsøgeren ikke i denne sag kan anses for at repræsentere de individuelle mandarinproducenters interesser for appelkammeret.
Consequently, the applicant cannot be regarded, in this case, as representing the interests of individual mandarin growers before the Board of Appeal.
Det bemærkes ydermere for fuldstændighedens skyld, at de enkelte mandarinproducenter ikke er individuelt berørt af tildelingsafgørelsen.
For the sake of completeness, it must also be concluded that the individual mandarin growers are not individually affected by the decision granting the right.
Det bemærkes i den forbindelse, at selv om afgørelsen frembringer virkninger i forhold til de pågældende producenter i almindelighed, er det ikke udelukket, at afgørelsen berører visse af dem individuelt (jf. Rettens kendelse af 30.4.2003, sag T-154/02, Villiger Söhne mod Rådet, Sml. II, s. 1921, præmis 40 og den deri nævnte retspraksis).
It is necessary to note in this regard that it is certainly true that the fact that the decision affects all the traders concerned does not exclude the possibility that some of them might be individually concerned (order in Case T-154/02 Villiger Söhne v Council [2003] ECR II-1921, paragraph 40 and the caselaw cited therein).
Det er imidlertid ikke tilstrækkeligt, at en foranstaltning har større økonomiske følger for nogle operatører end for andre operatører på området, for at førstnævnte kan anses for individuelt berørt af foranstaltningen (jf. i denne retning kendelsen i sagen Unión de Pequeños Agricultores mod Rådet, præmis 50).
However, it is not sufficient that a measure should have greater economic repercussions for some traders than for other traders in the sector in order for the former to be regarded as individually concerned by that measure (see, to that effect, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, paragraph 50).
Selv i det tilfælde, hvor en sagsøger måtte blive anset for den eneste, der berøres i et bestemt geografisk område, og for hovedproducenten eller leverandøren af produktet i et land eller et bestemt geografisk område, ville denne ikke være klageberettiget (jf. herved Domstolens dom af 17.1.1985, sag 11/82, Piraiki-Patraiki m.fl. mod Kommissionen, Sml. s. 207, præmis 13 og 14, og Rettens dom af 22.2.2000, sag T-138/98, ACAV m.fl. mod Rådet, Sml. II, s. 341, præmis 64-66).
Even if an applicant may be regarded as being the only person affected in a particular geographical area and as the principal producer or supplier of the product in a particular country or geographical area, it will not have locus standi (see, to that effect, Case 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki and Others v Commission [1985] ECR 207, paragraphs 13 and 14, and Case T-138/98 ACAV and Others v Council [2000] ECR II-341, paragraphs 64 to 66).
Det forhold, at tildelingsafgørelsen har større økonomiske følger for nogle operatører end for andre operatører på området, fordi de pågældende allerede har plantet træer af den nu beskyttede sort, og at 90% af de berørte producenter befinder sig i det geografiske område Valencia, er således ikke tilstrækkeligt til at individualisere dem.
Thus, the fact that the grant of the plant protection right had greater economic repercussions for some traders than for others in the sector by virtue of the fact that they had already planted trees of the protected variety and that 90% of growers affected were in the geographical area of Valencia is not sufficient to distinguish them individually.
De producenter, som sagsøgeren hævder at repræsentere, er kun berørt af forpligtelsen til at betale vederlag på grund af en objektiv faktisk situation, der ikke adskiller dem fra andre producenter af sorten, da denne forpligtelse følger direkte af Fællesskabets system for sortsbeskyttelse.
The growers whom the applicant claims to represent are affected by the obligation to pay royalties only by reason of an objective factual situation that in no way distinguishes them from other growers of the variety, since that obligation flows directly from the Community system of plant variety rights.
Hertil kommer, at de omhandlede producenters aktiviteter kan udføres af enhver på nuværende tidspunkt eller i fremtiden.
In addition, the activities of the growers concerned can be carried out by anyone, now or in the future.
Det bemærkes endvidere, at sagsøgeren ikke har fremlagt beviser, der godtgør, at de producenter og leverandører af plantemateriale, som forbundet hævder at
It must also be pointed out that the applicant has adduced no evidence to show that the growers and suppliers of plant material whom it claims to represent would have
Navnlig den omstændighed, at tildelingsafgørelsen kan tvinge producenterne til at rive deres træer op og påvirke deres mulighed for levere materiale af Afourersorten, der er en konkurrent til Nadorcott, hvis de ikke accepterer at betale vederlag, påviser ikke eksistensen af særlige egenskaber eller en faktisk situation, der adskiller dem fra andre producenter eller leverandører, der befinder sig i samme faktiske situation.
In particular, the fact that the decision granting the right might force the growers to uproot their trees and might affect the possibility of the suppliers to supply material of the Afourer variety, a competitor of the Nadorcott variety, if they did not agree to pay royalties does not demonstrate the existence of particular characteristics or situations which differentiate them from any other grower or supplier in the same objective factual situation.
De konkurrencemæssige forhold, som sagsøgeren har gjort gældende i den forbindelse, er endvidere ikke sammenlignelige med omstændighederne i Van Zanten-sagen, hvis subjektive beskyttede rettigheder var anfægtet.
In addition, the competitive relationships to which the applicant refers in that regard are not comparable to those at issue in the case concerning Van Zanten, the subjective protected rights of which had been contested.
Det følger af det foregående, at sagsøgeren ikke har godtgjort, at forbundet repræsenterer interesserne for producenter eller leverandører af plantemateriale, der selv er klageberettigede.
It follows from the foregoing that the applicant has not established that it represented the interests of growers or suppliers of plant material who themselves would have had locus standi.
Hvad for det tredje angår retlige forskrifter, der udtrykkeligt indrømmer sagsøgeren en række processuelle rettigheder, bemærkes først, at sagsøgeren ganske vist henviser til basisforordningens artikel 59, men kun for at anføre, at denne bestemmelse tjener andre formål end basisforordningens artikel 67 ff., og at indgivelsen af en klage ikke er betinget af deltagelse i tildelingsproceduren.
In the third place, with regard to legal provisions which expressly confer upon the applicant a number of powers of a procedural nature, it should first be pointed out that, although it is true that the applicant refers to Article 59 of the basic regulation, this is only to underpin the idea that that article seeks to attain different objectives to those of Article 67 et seq. of the basic regulation and that participation in the procedure for the grant of the right is not a condition precedent for lodging an appeal.
For det andet tager sagsøgeren fejl med hensyn til de processuelle rettigheders oprindelse, hvoraf forbundet udleder sin berettigelse til at indgive klage til appelkammeret.
Secondly, the applicant is in error as to the origin of the procedural rights on which it might base locus standi before the Board of Appeal.