1. 6. 95 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 121/31 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1238/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards the fees payable to the Community Plant Variety Office THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (the Basic Regulation) ('), and in particular Article 113 thereof, Whereas Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 is to be imple- mented by the Community Plant Variety Office (the Office) ; whereas the revenue of the Office should in prin- ciple be sufficient to balance the budget of the Office; whereas such revenues should be afforded by the fees to be paid for the official acts set out in the Basic Regulation and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the appli- cation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office () (the Proceedings Regulation) as well as by annual fees payable for the duration of a Community plant variety right; Whereas a subsidy from the general budget of the Euro- pean Communities may cover the expenditure on the initial running phase of the Office for the transitional period defined in Article 113 (3) (b) of the Regulation ; whereas an extension of that period by one year is possible by virtue of the same provision ; Whereas such extension of the transitional period should be considered if sufficient experience has not been gained for setting reasonable levels of fees ensuring the principle of self-financing whilst safeguarding the attractiveness of the Community system of plant variety protection ; whereas such experience could only be gained by obser- ving the number of applications for a Community plant variety right, the costs paid to the Examination Offices and the actual duration of Community plant variety rights granted ; Whereas the level of the fees should be based on the principles of sound financial management within the Office, and in particular economy and cost-effectiveness ; 1 () OJ No L 227, 1. 9. 1994, p. 1. (%) See page 37 of this Official Journal. Whereas, in the interests of a simplified handling by the staff of the Office, the fees should be not only laid down, but also charged and paid in the same currency unit as is used for the budget of the Office; Whereas the application fee should be a uniform fee covering only the processing of an application for a Community plant variety right made in respect of any given plant species ; Whereas the time limit for the payment of the applica- tion fee under Article 51 of the Basic Regulation should be considered as the period between the acts necessary for making the payment and the actual receipt of such payment by the Office, in particular in the need for a rapid recovery of costs already incurred by the Office on the one hand and for the facilitating of an effective filing of applications in the light of possibly long distances between applicant and Office, on the other; Whereas the total of the examination fees which are charged for a technical examination should, in principle, balance the total fees to be paid by the Office to all Examination Offices; whereas costs for the maintenance of the reference collection should not necessarily be . covered entirely by the examination fees charged; whereas the level of examination fee should vary between three groups of plant species in the light of experience available from existing national arrangements for plant variety protection ; Whereas the annual fees for the duration of a Community plant variety right should constitute an extra source of revenue for the Office, but should, inter alia, cover costs relating to the technical verification of varieties after the grant of a Community plant variety right and, in conse- quence, should follow the grouping established for the examination fees ; Whereas the appeal fee should be uniform in order to cover the main cost components relating to appeal proceedings, with the expection of costs relating to a technical examination pursuant to Articles 55 and 56 of the Basic Regulation or to any taking of evidence; whereas two different dates for payment of the application free should serve as an incentive to appellants to recon- sider their appeal in the light of the decisions taken by the Office pursuant to Article 70 (2) of the Basic Regula- tion ;