Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
PROTOTYPE?THEclaiMFORinFORMaTiOnbaSEDOnTHEcOUncilREGUlaTiOn...
inpara.2shallbeapplied.Paragraph2specificallyencompassesthecom-
pensationbeingpaidfortheuseofthevariety.Article11oftheRegulation
No.1768/95allows,underspecificcircumstances,submittingtheclaimfor
informationtotheofficialbody(invokingtheexampleofArt.23apara.5
u.o.p.o.r.,thatistheMainInspectorateofPlantHealthandSeedInspec-
tion).Article12ofRegulationNo.1768/95stipulatesthatthepersonalde-
tailsenclosedintheclaimssubmittedonthebasisofArt.8,9,10,11are
subjecttopersonaldataprotection.
Theanalysisofaforementionedregulationsleadstoaconclusionthat
thereviewedclaimforinformationmightbefldiscovery”innature.Que-
ryingthefarmerontheprocessor’sdetailsenablesthebreedertoiden-
tifythepersonwhohasinfringedtheplantbreederright(processing,i.e.
preparationofthevarietyforbreedingisanactrestrictedfortheholderof
thevariety).Moreover,thisclaimmightalsobeflverifying”innature.Ques-
tioningthefarmerabouttheprocessorandviceversaenablestheholder
ofthevarietytoverifytheinformationobtainedinsuchamanner.
Theevaluationoftheadmissibilityoftheclaimforinformation
throughtheprismofpreviouslyquotedgeneralprovisionofthelegiti-
mateinterestsrelatedtoproportionalityhasturnedouttobeanappeal-
ingissue.Inviewofthis,theinterpretationoftheregulationsregarding
theclaimforinformationbasedonagriculturalexemptionsparkednu-
merouslitigationsbetweenbreedersandfarmersbeforeCJEU.Itismean-
ingfulthatoutofabout10rulingsofCJEUwithregardstotheRegulation
No.2100/94,sixapplytovariousaspectsofclaimforinformation.More-
over,eachofthesesixderivedfromthedisputebetweenGermanbreed-
ersassociationnamedSaatgutTreuhandsverwaltung(STV),executingthe
collectionofremunerationanddueinformationrequestsbasedonagri-
culturalexemptionfromfarmersandprocessors.Amongthese,thecase
C.Schulinv.STVmbH4whichresultedinthefirstrulingofCJEUwith
regardstotheRegulationNo.2100/94isconsideredtobeoneofthemost
significant.Inthisruling,CJEUproclaimedthatArt.14para.3oftheReg-
ulationNo.2100/94doesnotimplythatthebreederisentitledforaclaim
forinformationagainstthefarmerwherethereisalackofsomeindication
thattheprotectedplantvarietywasusedaspropagatingmaterial.This
decisionofCJEUwassupportedbytheinterpretationpointingthatthis
regulationappliestothebeneficiaryoftheagriculturalexemptionand,
consequently,theclaimforinformationcanbedirectedagainsttheben-
eficiaryonly.Still,onasidenote,itwasdenotedthatsuchinterpretation
isalsobackedbytheArt.2para.1oftheRegulationNo.1768/95,accord-
4JudgmentofCJEUof10April2003,incaseC-305/00,C.Schulinv.STV
,
ECLI:EU:C:2003:218.
77