- 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-284/09 P: Appeal brought on 17 July 2009 by Herbert Meister against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 18 May 2009 in Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08 Meister v OHIM
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0284
62009TN0284
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
10.10.2009
Official Journal of the European Union
C 244/6
—
(Case T-284/09 P)
2009/C 244/10
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
—That the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 May 2009 in Case F-37/08 Meister v OHIM be set aside;
—that OHIM be ordered to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 May 2009 in Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08 Meister v OHIM, in which, inter alia, the appellant’s pleas in Case F-37/08 were rejected.
In support of his appeal, the appellant claims primarily that, the Civil Service Tribunal breached its duty of neutrality and objectivity, that it did not carry out an accurate assessment of the facts of the case but rather a one-sided assessment, and that it distorted the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Civil Service Tribunal is criticised for improper procedural confusion regarding the respective subject-matter of Case F-138/06 and Case F-37/08. In addition, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in its judgment on the facts of the case. Lastly, the appellant criticises the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision on costs.
The appellant takes the view that the Civil Service Tribunal, by its infringements, also breached its duty to provide lawful grounds for the judgment under appeal.
—