Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2024

1. AgricultureUniform legislationProtection of plant varietiesAppeals procedureAppeal brought against a decision of the Community Plant Variety Office and referred to the Board of AppealExamination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motionObligation to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspectsScope

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Arts 54, 55 and 76)

(see paragraph 25)

2. AgricultureUniform legislationProtection of plant varietiesAppeals procedureAppeal brought against a decision of the Community Plant Variety Office and referred to the Board of AppealMeasures of inquiryRequest made by a partyConditions under which permissible

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 78)

(see paragraph 28)

3. AgricultureUniform legislationProtection of plant varietiesAppeals procedureAppeal brought against a decision of the Community Plant Variety Office and referred to the Board of AppealExamination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motionScopeFacts and evidence not submitted in due timeAccount takenDiscretion of the Office

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 76; Commission Regulation No 874/2009, Art. 53a(4))

(see paragraphs 38, 39)

4. AgricultureUniform legislationProtection of plant varietiesDeclaration annulling a right improperly grantedRequest to open nullity proceedingsBurden of proof on the applicantReversal of the burden of proofConditions

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Arts 20(1)(a), 54 and 55)

(see paragraph 47)

5. AgricultureUniform legislationProtection of plant varietiesDecisions of the Community Plant Variety Office or its Boards of AppealJudicial reviewScope

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 73)

(see paragraphs 57, 58)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eurosemillas, SA to pay the costs.