CIOPORA examines the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador in Case 4-20-EI, which involved a dispute between PLANTEC, a plant breeding company, ASPROPAFLO, an association of rose-growing members of the Kayambi Indigenous community, and the Ecuadorian National Intellectual Property Service (SENADI). The case centers around royalty payments for the use of protected rose varieties and the jurisdictional limits of Indigenous autonomy.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador Protects Plant Breeders' Rights
CIOPORA examines the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador in Case 4-20-EI, which involved a dispute between PLANTEC, a plant breeding company, ASPROPAFLO, an association of rose-growing members of the Kayambi Indigenous community, and the Ecuadorian National Intellectual Property Service (SENADI). The case centres around royalty payments for the use of PLANTEC’s protected rose varieties and the jurisdictional limits of Indigenous autonomy.
Background of the Case
PLANTEC initiated an administrative action against ASPROPAFLO before SENADI for allegedly using its IP-protected rose varieties without authorization. SENADI ruled in favour of PLANTEC, imposing fines and a cease-and-desist order on ASPROPAFLO. ASPROPAFLO then appealed to the Kayambi Indigenous Assembly for intervention, arguing that PLANTEC's royalty fees were abusive and disruptive to the community's economy.
The Kayambi Assembly's Resolution
The Kayambi Assembly, asserting its authority to resolve internal conflicts within its territory, issued Resolution 003-CPKA-2020. This resolution characterized the dispute as an internal conflict and ruled in favour of ASPROPAFLO. Notably, the Assembly declared PLANTEC's royalty fees harmful to the community's economy, established limits on those fees, and prohibited SENADI officials from conducting inspections on Kayambi lands without the community's authorization.
SENADI's Challenge and the Constitutional Court's Review
SENADI, arguing that the Kayambi Assembly had overstepped its jurisdictional bounds, filed an extraordinary action of protection with the Constitutional Court, challenging the Assembly's resolution. The Court undertook a comprehensive review, analysing the case in the context of Article 171 of the Ecuadorian Constitution. This article grants Indigenous authorities jurisdiction to resolve internal conflicts within their territories, applying their own customary norms and procedures, provided such actions are not contrary to the Constitution and human rights.
The Constitutional Court's Determination
The Constitutional Court meticulously examined whether the dispute between ASPROPAFLO and PLANTEC constituted an internal conflict under the parameters of Article 171. The Court ultimately concluded that the dispute stemmed from a contractual relationship between ASPROPAFLO and PLANTEC, originating in a business agreement for the use of IP-protected rose varieties. This, according to the Court, did not meet the criteria of an internal community conflict as envisioned by Article 171.
Furthermore, the Court found that the Kayambi Assembly's Resolution exceeded its authority by attempting to regulate PLANTEC's royalty fees and restricting SENADI's mandate to enforce intellectual property rights and conduct inspections. These actions, the Court determined, interfered with SENADI's constitutional and legal powers and hindered the enforcement of plant breeders' rights.
The Court's Decision and its Implications for Plant Breeders' Rights
The Constitutional Court declared the Kayambi Assembly's Resolution to be without legal effect and not binding, as it exceeded the Assembly’s jurisdictional authority. This decision represents a significant step in the protection of plant breeders' rights in Ecuador.
Key conclusions of this court case:
Recognition of Plant Breeders' Rights: The Court's decision upholds the validity of PLANTEC's Plant Breeders' Rights on its rose varieties and recognizes the company's entitlement to fair compensation for the use of its intellectual property.
Enforcement within Indigenous Territories: The ruling clarifies that Indigenous autonomy does not extend to the arbitrary regulation or invalidation of intellectual property rights, even within Indigenous territories.
Jurisdictional Limits: The Court emphasizes the boundaries of Indigenous jurisdiction, affirming that such authority cannot hinder the enforcement of national laws, particularly in areas like intellectual property that are essential for economic development and innovation.
Protection of Breeders' Investments: By safeguarding PLANTEC's rights, the decision indirectly protects the investments made by plant breeders in research and development. This protection incentivises innovation and the creation of new plant varieties, which benefits the agricultural sector and the economy as a whole.
This landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador reinforces the importance of balancing Indigenous autonomy with the enforcement of national laws and intellectual property rights. By overturning the Kayambi Assembly's Resolution, the Court ensures legal certainty for plant breeders, promotes innovation in the agricultural sector, and establishes a precedent for the protection of intellectual property rights within the context of Indigenous jurisdiction in Ecuador.
Comentarios