Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings and the Additional Protocol on Biomedical Research, which do not define the concept of “human being.” 391 250. For its part, the Court of Justice of the European Union 392 in the Case of Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace eV 393 indicated that the purpose of Directive 98/44/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council, of July 6, 1998, on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, was “not to regulate the use of human embryos in the context of scientific research, [and that it was] limited to the patentability of biotechnological inventions.” 394 However, it clarified that “although the purpose of scientific research must be distinguished from industrial or commercial purposes, the use of human embryos for research, which constitutes the reason for the application for a patent, cannot be separated from the patent itself and the rights attaching to it.” 395 Consequently “the exclusion from patentability concerning the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes in Article 6(2)(c) of the Directive also covers use for purposes of scientific research, only use for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which is applied to the human embryo and is useful to it being patentable.” 396 In this decision the European Court of Justice reaffirmed the exclusion of the patentability of human embryos, understood in a broad sense, 397 for ethical and moral reasons, 398 when it is associated with industrial or commercial purposes. However, neither the Directive, nor the judgment state that human embryos should be considered as “persons” or that they have a subjective right to life. 391 ECHR, Case of Vo. v. France (No. 53924/00), GC, Judgment of 8 July 2004, para. 84. (The Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine […] is careful not to give a definition of the term “everyone”, and its explanatory report indicates that, in the absence of a unanimous agreement on the definition, the member States decided to allow domestic law to provide clarification for the purposes of the application of that Convention […] The same is true of the Additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings and the Additional Protocol on Biomedical Research, which do not define the concept of “human being). 392 The Court of Justice of the European Union is an institution of the European Union (EU) entrusted with the jurisdictional powers or judicial authority in the Union. Its mission is to interpret and apply the law of the European Union and it is characterized by its structure and composition and its supranational authority and functioning. Its seat is in Luxembourg. 393 Cf. European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Case C-34/10, Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace eV. 394 European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Case C-34/10, Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace eV, para. 40. 395 European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Case C-34/10, Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace eV, para. 43. 396 European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Case C-34/10, Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace eV, para. 46. 397 Cf. European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 18 October 2011, Case C-34/10, Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace eV, para. 38 (“any human ovum after fertilization, any non-fertilized human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted and any non-fertilized human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis constitute a ‘human embryo’ within the meaning of Article 6(2)(c) of the Directive.” Article 6 of the Directive states: 1. Inventions shall be considered unpatentable where their commercial exploitation is contrary to public order or morality; however, exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation. 2. On the basis of paragraph 1, the following, in particular, shall be considered unpatentable: […] (c) uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes”). 398 Cf. European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, Judgment of October 18, 2011, Case C-34/10, Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace eV, para. 6, stating that the “preamble to the Directive states the following: […] whereas public order and morality correspond in particular to the ethical and moral principles recognized in a Member State, respect for which is particularly important in the field of biotechnology, in view of the potential scope of inventions in this field and their inherent relationship to living matter; whereas such ethical and moral principles supplement the standard legal examinations under patent Law, regardless of the technical field of the invention.”