Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016TA0445

    Case T-445/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2018 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico) (Plant variety rights — Application for Community plant variety rights for the plant variety Gala Schnico — Technical examination — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Uniformity — Article 8 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Complementary examination — Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 — Equal treatment — Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion — Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94)

    OJ C 123, 9.4.2018, p. 17–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    9.4.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 123/17


    Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2018 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico)

    (Case T-445/16) (1)

    ((Plant variety rights - Application for Community plant variety rights for the plant variety Gala Schnico - Technical examination - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Uniformity - Article 8 of Regulation No 2100/94 - Complementary examination - Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 - Equal treatment - Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94))

    (2018/C 123/22)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

    Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad, F. Mattina and U. Braun-Mlodecka, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 22 April 2016 (Case A 005/2014) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right in respect of the plant variety Gala Schnico.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the appeal;

    2.

    Orders Schniga GmbH to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


    Top