Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
KRZYSZTOFFElcHnER
tionarecertainlybasedontheregulationsfromtheformerlegalact.This
isalsoindicatedbyfurtheramendmentstothisinstitutionmadebythe
Polishlegislator.23Plantvarietyprotectionhasnotbeenharmonisedonthe
EUlevelbymeansofanappropriatedirective.UPOVConvention24does
notincludedirectregulationswithregardtotheclaimforinformation.
Article15para.2ofthisConventionrelatedtotheagriculturalexemption
onlyreadsthat:flNotwithstandingArticle14,eachContractingPartymay,
withinreasonablelimitsandsubjecttothesafeguardingofthelegitimate
interestsofthebreeder,restrictthebreeder’srightinrelationtoanyvari-
etyinordertopermitfarmerstouseforpropagatingpurposes,ontheir
ownholdings,theproductoftheharvestwhichtheyhaveobtainedby
planting,ontheirownholdings,theprotectedvariety[...]”.Thus,dueto
thelackofthedirective,theRegulationNo.2100/94hasactuallybecome
ameansofharmonisation.Consequently,substantialimportanceshallbe
giventoCJEU’sinterpretationofthisregulation.Finally,theassumption
thatadmissibilityoftheclaimforinformationbasedonArt.23au.o.p.o.r.
doesnotdependontheexistenceofsomeindication(somekindofsubstan-
tiation),whiletheadmissibilityoftheclaimforinformationbasedonArt.8
and9oftheRegulationNo.1768/95dependsonthatpremise(accordingly
withthebindinginterpretationofCJEU),willresultinthecircumstances
whereadmissibilityoftheclaimforinformationagainstthePolishfarmer,
evenwithregardtovarietyofthesamespecies(forinstance,thevarietyof
potatoes),willbeevaluateddifferently,dependingonwhetherthevariety
inuseisprotectedonthenationalortheEUlevel.Withreferencetothe
aforementionedremarkonthephenomenonofflharmonization”ofthe
constructionoftheagriculturalexemptioninthePolishlegislationwith
theEUregulations,thissituationshallbedeemedobjectionable;itishard
toexpectthatitwillcontributetowardstheunderstandingoftheinstitu-
tionofagriculturalexemptionandfarmers’respectforitsprinciples.In
abroadcontext,theinterpretationofArt.23au.o.p.o.r.proposedbythe
SupremeCourtisanothermanifestationofavisible,generaltendencyof
strengtheningofthestatusoftheplantbreederinthePolishplantvariety
protectionlegislation.Theonlyquestionthatarisesiswhetheritisdelib-
erateandwell-consideredorfaultyandarbitrary.25
23K.Felchner,Komentarzdozmianyart.23ustawyoochronieprawnejodmian
roślinwprowadzonejprzezDz.U.z2011r.Nr186poz.1099,Lex.
24InternationalConventionfortheProtectionofNewVarietiesofPlants,2De-
cember1961(OJL192,22July2005,p.64–77,hereinafter:UPOVConvention).
25K.Felchner,Ż.Pacud,Ochronaroślinwprawiewłasnościprzemysłowej–porów-
naniemodeluochronypatentowejiochronywyłącznymprawemhodowcy,EPS1/2015,
p.37.
84
