Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62015TN0140

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

IO 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)

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