Case C-358/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal du travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 24 September 2002 in the case of Yamina Haddad against Belgian State
Date: 2002-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Morocco, cooperation agreement (EU), disabled person, foreign national, interpretation of the law, social-security benefit

C 305/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.12.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to implement
Commission Directive 2000/57/EC of 22 September
2000 (1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 76/
895/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of maximum
levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables
and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
vegetables respectively, the Republic of Austria has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and principle arguments

maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and
vegetables and certain products of plant origin, including
fruit and vegetables respectively, or in failing to notify the
Commission of their adoption, the Republic of Austria
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and principle arguments

The obligation of
the Member States to implement the
directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
case that time-limit expired on 31.03.2001, by which time the
Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary measures.

The obligation of the Member States do implement the
directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
case that time-limit expired on 31 March 2001, by which time
the Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary
measures.

(1) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 78.

( 1) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 76.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal du
travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 24 Sep-
tember 2002 in the case of Yamina Haddad against Belgian
State

Action brought on 3 October 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-358/02)

(2002/C 305/20)

(Case C-355/02)

(2002/C 305/19)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 3 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its legal service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the legal service, Wagner
Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to implement
Commission Directive 2000/58/EC of 22 September
2000 (1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 86/
362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the tribunal du travail
de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) of 24 September 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Yamina Haddad against
Belgian State on the following question:

Must Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement signed on
27 April 1976 between the Member States of the European
Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, as
approved on behalf of the Community by Regulation No 2211/
78 of 26 September 1978 (1), be interpreted, inter alia in the
light of Article 14 of the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and Article 1 of Protocol
No 1 thereto of 20 March 1952, as precluding a Member State
from refusing to grant a benefit such as a disability allowance,
as provided under its laws in favour of its nationals and
citizens of the European Union, to a Moroccan national who
is a student and the wife of an unemployed Moroccan national,

7.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 305/13

both resident in Belgium, when the couple are insured on a
voluntary basis under the Belgian social security scheme in
respect of health insurance?

( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978
concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between
the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
(OJ L 264 of 27.9.1978, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Modena, Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari by
order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the Criminal
Proceedings against Christian Lanzotti

(Case C-359/02)

(2002/C 305/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Modena,
Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari (Modena District
Court, Office of the Investigating Judge) of 27 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the Criminal Proceedings against Chris-
tian Lanzotti on the following question:

Are national rules such as Articles 4(1), 4a and 4b of the Italian
Law No 401/89, as amended by Article 37 of Law No 388/00,
which prohibit and make subject to criminal penalties the
pursuit by any person in any place of the activities of taking,
accepting, booking and forwarding bets placed, in particular
on sporting events, without obtaining the prior authorisation
and licence required by domestic law, compatible with
Article 43 et seq. and Article 49 et seq. EC on the freedom
of establishment and the freedom to provide cross-border
services?

Appeal brought on 8 October 2002 by Carlo Ripa di
Meana against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo
Ripa di Meana and European Parliament

(Case C-360/02 P)

(2002/C 305/22)

An appeal against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European

Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo Ripa di Meana
and European Parliament was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 8 October 2002 by
Carlo Ripa di Meana, represented by Wilma Viscardini and
Gabriele Donà.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
9 July 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-127/01
between Carlo Ripa di Meana and European Parliament;

— declare admissible the application in Case T-127/01;

— refer Case T-127/01 back to the Court of First Instance

for judgment on the substance;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
appeal and of proceedings at first instance on the matter
of admissibility.

Pleas and main arguments

By order of 9 July 2002, the Court of First Instance upheld the
objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Parliament
in Case T-127/01 and, accordingly, declared inadmissible the
application made by Mr Ripa di Meana for annulment of the
decision of the European Parliament of 26 March 2001
suspending the applicant’s pension as former Member of the
European Parliament following his election to the legislative
assembly for the Region of Umbria.

In particular, the Court of First Instance held Mr Ripa di
Meana’s application to be out of time inasmuch as the letter of
26 March 2001, not containing any new information not
contained in the letter of the European Parliament of 26 Janu-
ary 2001 and since it was not the result of a re-examination of
the applicant’s situation in the light of factual and legal
arguments put forward by him in his letter of 15 March
2001, was to be deemed ‘merely confirming the decision of
26 January 2001’.

Mr Ripa di Meana is challenging that order on the ground that
it is vitiated by a number of manifest errors of law.

In particular, Mr Ripa di Meana claims that the Court of First
Instance: committed an error of procedure; infringed the rights
of the defence; attributed the wrong legal classification to the
letters of 26 January 2001 and 26 March 2001. Furthermore,
the Court of First Instance misapplied Community case-law
concerning confirmatory acts and did not take account of
case-law regarding ‘excusable error’.