- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-48/10 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Herbert Meister against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09, Meister v OHIM
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0048
62010TN0048
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 100/55
—
(Case T-48/10 P)
2010/C 100/81
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: Herbert Meister (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by H.-J. Zimmermann, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought by the appellant
—Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09 Meister v OHIM;
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appeal is against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09 Meister v OHIM by which the appellant’s action was dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
In support of his appeal, the appellant claims that the action at first instance was necessary on the ground that the facts are directly materially connected with the subject-matter of the previous Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08, which at the time the action was brought had not been decided. The appellant claims that the dismissal from the outset of Case F-17/09 as inadmissible without an oral hearing infringes the guarantee of the right to be heard in Article 6 ECHR. Furthermore, the appellant complains that the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed its request for a stay of proceedings in view of an appeal brought against the judgment in Case F-37/08. Finally, it complains that the court of first instance’s assessment of the subject-matter was incomplete an incorrect in law.
—