62. Any infringement of the rights of the owner of a plant breed certificate, as defined by Article 16 of this Law, shall constitute counterfeiting incurring the civil liability of the infringer. The owner of a compulsory or ex officio license referred to in Articles 21, 26 or 28 of this Law, and, unless stipulated otherwise, the beneficiary of an exclusive right of use may take the legal action relating to liability provided for in the first paragraph above if, after having been served formal notice, the owner of the certificate fails to take such action. The owner of the certificate shall be entitled to participate in the action for liability brought by the licensee in accordance with the previous paragraph. Any holder of a license shall be entitled to intervene in the proceedings brought by the owner of the certificate for the purpose of receiving compensation for the harm which he has personally undergone. 63. Events prior to the publication of the grant of the certificate shall not be considered to have infringed the rights deriving from the certificate. However, once the presumed infringer has received notification, by means of a certified true copy, of the application for the certificates, events subsequent thereto may be evidenced and prosecuted. 64. The owner of an application for a plant breed certificate or a certificate may have made, with the authorization of the court, a detailed description, with or without seizure, of all plants or parts of plants and all propagating or plant propagating elements allegedly obtained through disregard for his rights. This possibility shall be open to the holder of an exclusive license for use or to the beneficiary of a compulsory or ex officio license under the conditions fixed in the second paragraph of Article 62 above. Where the applicant fails to bring proceedings before the court within 15 days following the day on which the seizure or the description occurred, the description or seizure shall be null as of right, without prejudice to any damages which might be claimed, where applicable. 65. The detailed description, with or without the seizure of the plants, parts of plants, or all propagating or plant propagating elements for the allegedly infringing variety, provided for by Article 64 above, shall be ordered by the president of the competent court under whose jurisdiction the operations must be conducted. The order shall be granted upon request and subject to the production of either the plant breed certificate or, in the case provided for in Article 63 of this Law, a certified true copy of the application for the plant breed certificate. Where the request is submitted by the holder of an exclusive right of use or by the beneficiary of a compulsory or ex officio license referred to in Articles 21, 26 or 28 of this Law, the applicant must prove that the owner of the plant breed certificate failed to take action after having been served formal notice to do so. 66. Where seizure is ordered, the judge may impose on the requestor a security which the requestor shall be obliged to pay before the undertaking of the seizure. The notarial officer shall, before conducting the seizure, on pain of invalidation of the measure and the award of damages against him, hand a copy of the writ to the holders of the plants, parts of plants or propagating or plant propagating elements of the variety considered, and, where applicable, of the document evidencing the provision of security. A copy of the record of the seizure shall likewise be handed to them. 67. The court may, at the request of the aggrieved party and provided that the measure is necessary to ensure the prohibition on continuing the infringement, find in favor of the party with a view to transferring to him ownership, the seizure of plants or parts of plants, and