If the request is presented by the assignee of an exclusive right of exploitation or by the
holder of a compulsory or an ex officio license as referred to in Articles 21, 26 or 28 of this
Law, the petitioner shall be required to prove failure to act on the part of the holder of the
plant variety certificate after having been notified and invited to institute proceedings.
Article 66
If seizure is ordered, the court may require the petitioner to furnish a guarantee to be
deposited before the seizure is effected. On pain of nullity and of damages awarded against
the official of the registry or the bailiff, the latter shall be required, prior to carrying out the
seizure, to give to the holders of plants, parts of plants or elements of reproduction or
vegetative propagation of the variety concerned a copy of the order and, where appropriate, of
the act recording the deposit of a guarantee. Those same holders shall be given a copy of the
seizure report.
Article 67
At the request of the injured party, and where such measure proves necessary to enforce
the prohibition on continued infringement, the court may order confiscation to the benefit of
the injured party of any plants or parts of plants or elements of reproduction or vegetative
propagation obtained in violation of the rights of the owner of the plant variety certificate and,
where appropriate, of the instruments specifically intended for use in the reproductive cycle.
The value of the confiscated articles shall be taken into account when calculating the
indemnity to be awarded to the beneficiary of the sentence.
Article 68
The civil and criminal proceedings under this Chapter shall be statute-barred after three
years counted from the acts concerned.
The institution of civil proceedings shall suspend the limitation of criminal proceedings.
Article 69
Where a variety that is the subject matter of an application for a certificate or a plant
variety certificate is exploited for the needs of defense by the State or its contractors,
subcontractors and subsidiary suppliers, without a license having been granted to them, the
court hearing the case may not order either cessation or interruption of exploitation nor
confiscation as provided for in Article 67 above.
If an expert opinion or a description, with or without seizure, is ordered by the presiding
judge of the court hearing the case, no expert opinion or description or seizure shall be carried
out and no investigation in the enterprise shall be undertaken if the contract for research or
reproduction or propagation comprises a defense security classification.
The same shall apply where research, reproduction or propagation are carried out in a
military establishment.