Press and Information Division
PRESS RELEASE No 14/04
11 March 2004
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-182/01
Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Werner Jäger
HOLDERS OF COMMUNITY PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS ARE FREE TO CHOOSE THE LEGAL FORM
THEY WISH TO TAKE
Consequently, a limited liability company may enforce the rights of holders who are
members of other organisations of holders, where those organisations are shareholders in the
company enforcing the rights concerned
A 1995 regulation lays down the conditions to give effect to that exception
and provides that farmers (apart from "small farmers") who make use of this
option must pay the holder of the plant variety right limited remuneration. The
regulation also deals with the farmer's information obligation, by virtue of which the
farmer must provide certain information to the holder, and with the ability of
individual holders, several holders collectively or an organisation of holders to enforce their
rights.
Mr Jäger, a German farmer, refused to provide Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (a German limited
company engaged in trust management in relation to seeds) with any information about
whether he had made use of the agricultural exemption during the 1997/1998 growing
season.
The Landgericht Düsseldorf dismissed the action brought by Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft on the ground that
it was not entitled to bring such an action. The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, on
appeal, asked the Court of Justice whether a limited company can constitute an
"organisation of holders" and whether a holder of a Community plant variety right
may require information from any farmer, irrespective of whether there is any evidence
to suggest that the agricultural exemption has been used.
The Court started by pointing out that the term "organisation of holders" is
not defined in the 1995 Regulation. However, it noted that the regulation leaves
the choice of which legal form the organisation is to take to the
holders and that therefore it may be an association or a limited company.
The Court held that, if the holders are free to choose the legal
rules applicable to their organisation, the same must also be true as regards
the members. Consequently, an organisation of holders may be made up of both
natural persons and other organisations, which themselves have members who are holders of
rights. However, a holder of a plant variety right who is not a
member of any organisation of holders (i.e. is neither a direct nor an
indirect member) cannot arrange for his interests to be safeguarded by such an
organisation in return for payment.
Finally, the Court concluded that it follows from its case-law that the two
regulations at issue do not enable the holder, where he has no evidence
that the agricultural exemption may have been used, to ask a farmer whether
he has exercised that right.
Unofficial document, for media use only, which does not bind the Court of Justice. The full text of the judgment can be found on the internet (www.curia.eu.int ). In principle it will be available from midday CET on the day of delivery. For additional information please contact Christopher Fretwell. Tel: (00352) 4303 3355 Fax: (00352) 4303 2731. |
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety
rights
(OJ 1994 L 227, p.1).
2 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for
in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (OJ 1995 L 173,
p. 14).
3 Judgment of 10 April 2003 in Case C-305/00 Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH [2003] ECR I-3525
(see also press release No 32/03).