Case C‑56/11

Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG

v

Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf)

‛Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Processing services — Obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information to the holder of the Community right — Requirements regarding the time and content of an application for information’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 15 November 2012

1. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Plant variety rights — Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95 — Information to be provided by the supplier of processing services — Scope — Limit

   (Commission Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, Art. 9(3))

2. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Plant variety rights — Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1768/95 — Information to be provided by the supplier of processing services — Request for information from the holder of the right — Mandatory content — Evidence supporting the indications submitted — Not included — Protected plant variety planted under contract by a farmer — Fact which cannot, by itself, constitute an indication of processing services

   (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 14(3), sixth indent; Commission Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, Art. 9)

1.  Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1768/95 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, is to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information on the protected varieties in question is established if the request for information referring to a given marketing year was submitted before the expiry of that marketing year. However, there may be such an obligation so far as concerns information relating to up to three preceding marketing years, in so far as the holder of a Community plant variety right submitted a first request in respect of the same varieties and the same supplier of processing services during the first of the preceding marketing years covered by the request for information.

   (see para. 33, operative part 1)

2.  The sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights read in conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, must be interpreted as meaning that the request for information made by the holder of a Community plant variety right to a supplier of processing services need not contain evidence to support the indications put forward therein. Moreover, the fact that a farmer has planted under contract a protected plant variety cannot, by itself, constitute an indication that a supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by planting propagating material of that variety for planting. Such a fact may, however, in the light of the other circumstances of the case, lead to the conclusion that there is such an indication, which is for the referring court to determine.

   (see para. 42, operative part 2)

Case C‑56/11

Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG

v

Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf)

‛Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Processing services — Obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information to the holder of the Community right — Requirements regarding the time and content of an application for information’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 15 November 2012

1. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Plant variety rights — Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95 — Information to be provided by the supplier of processing services — Scope — Limit

   (Commission Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, Art. 9(3))

2. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Plant variety rights — Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1768/95 — Information to be provided by the supplier of processing services — Request for information from the holder of the right — Mandatory content — Evidence supporting the indications submitted — Not included — Protected plant variety planted under contract by a farmer — Fact which cannot, by itself, constitute an indication of processing services

   (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 14(3), sixth indent; Commission Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, Art. 9)

1.  Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1768/95 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, is to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information on the protected varieties in question is established if the request for information referring to a given marketing year was submitted before the expiry of that marketing year. However, there may be such an obligation so far as concerns information relating to up to three preceding marketing years, in so far as the holder of a Community plant variety right submitted a first request in respect of the same varieties and the same supplier of processing services during the first of the preceding marketing years covered by the request for information.

   (see para. 33, operative part 1)

2.  The sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights read in conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, must be interpreted as meaning that the request for information made by the holder of a Community plant variety right to a supplier of processing services need not contain evidence to support the indications put forward therein. Moreover, the fact that a farmer has planted under contract a protected plant variety cannot, by itself, constitute an indication that a supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by planting propagating material of that variety for planting. Such a fact may, however, in the light of the other circumstances of the case, lead to the conclusion that there is such an indication, which is for the referring court to determine.

   (see para. 42, operative part 2)