EUpolitixPlus.com
Environment Bulletin

European Court of Justice victory for farmer

A German farmer has won the right to withhold information on his farming practices from a seeds company, following a decision in the European Court of Justice.

The ECJ on Thursday ruled that Mr Jäger did not have to tell Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft whether or not he used patent-protected plant varieties on his farm in the late 1990s.

Farmers, unlike everyone else in the EU, do not have to get permission to use a patented plant from the person who bred or discovered it, but they usually have to tell that person they are using it.

The court however decided that in this case Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft does not have the authority to ask for this information without evidence that the plant was being used by Mr Jäger.

The ECJ said that the company was not the same as an 'organisation of holders' - the ill-defined entity representing patent holders which has the right to demand information on protected plants used by farmers.

It added that the 1995 regulation laying out the 'agricultural exception' for farmers using patented crops does not explain what an organisation of holders is.

Nº 14/2004 : 11 March 2004
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-182/01
Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft

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

Regulation No 2100/94 establishes a system of Community plant variety rights. The person who has bred or discovered and developed a variety is entitled to a Community plant variety right. The regulation provides for an exception to the general principle of protection of the holder's rights, known as the "agricultural exemption". Farmers may use, on their holdings, harvested material from a protected variety without having to obtain the holder's authorisation. That exception was adopted on the basis of the public interest in safeguarding agricultural production.

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.

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:European Court of Justice: The holder of a community plant variety right can ask a farmer to provide information if there is some indication that the farmer has made use of the "agricultural exemption").

Unofficial document, for media use only, which does not bind the Court of Justice.
Available languages: English, French, German.
The full text of the judgment can be found on the internet (www.curia.eu.int ).

18 March 2004
Presse Bericht des Deutschen Bauernverbandes

Auskunftspflicht bei Z-Saatgutkauf - Europäischer Gerichtshof urteilt zur Auskunft beim Nachbau

Das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofes vom 11. März 2004 zur Auskunftspflicht über Nachbau begegnet nach Auffassung des Deutschen Bauernverbandes (DBV) grundlegenden datenschutzrechtlichen Bedenken. Der Gerichtshof hat damit seine Entscheidung vom April 2003 bekräftigt, dass Käufer von Z-Saatgut der Auskunftspflicht unterliegen. Der Kauf von Z-Saatgut sei ein „Anhaltspunkt“ für möglichen Nachbau. Landwirte seien bei Vorliegen eines solchen Anhaltpunktes gegenüber den Sortenschutzinhabern zur Auskunft verpflichtet.

Der DBV wertet die vom Europäischen Gerichtshof zu Grunde gelegte Auffassung, die Sortenschutzinhaber seien nach dem EU-Recht berechtigt, von Z-Saatgut-Händlern Auskunft über ihre Kunden zu erhalten, als einen gefährlichen Eingriff in den Datenschutz. Die insbesondere aus Wettbewerbsgründen sensiblen Daten über den Saatguteinkauf seien in hohem Maße schutzbedürftig. Nach Auffassung des DBV muss diese wettbewerbsfeindliche Auslegung des EU-Rechts dringend korrigiert werden.