Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62015TN0140

    Case T-140/15: Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Aurora v CPVO — SES-VanderHave (M 02205)

    OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 17–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    24/03/2015
    Date lodged:
    24/03/2015
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    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.
    Top