CELEX: C2002/305/20
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-07 00:00:00
Title: 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

C 305/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.12.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and
                                                                                 vegetables and certain products of plant origin, including
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    fruit and vegetables respectively, or in failing to notify the
      and administrative provisions necessary to implement                       Commission of their adoption, the Republic of Austria
      Commission Directive 2000/57/EC of 22 September                            has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      2000 ( 1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 76/
      895/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of maximum                     2.     Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      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;
                                                                          Pleas in law and principle arguments
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                          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
Pleas in law and principle arguments
                                                                          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
                                                                          (1 ) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 78.
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. 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                                                   (Case C-358/02)
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                               Austria
                                                                                                     (2002/C 305/20)
                           (Case C-355/02)
                           (2002/C 305/19)                                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
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                     preliminary ruling in the case of Yamina Haddad against
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   Belgian State on the following question:
on 3 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its legal service,           Must Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement signed on
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             27 April 1976 between the Member States of the European
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the legal service, Wagner         Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, as
Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.                                       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
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
                                                                          signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and Article 1 of Protocol
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             No 1 thereto of 20 March 1952, as precluding a Member State
      and administrative provisions necessary to implement                from refusing to grant a benefit such as a disability allowance,
      Commission Directive 2000/58/EC of 22 September                     as provided under its laws in favour of its nationals and
      2000 ( 1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 86/             citizens of the European Union, to a Moroccan national who
      362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of                 is a student and the wife of an unemployed Moroccan national,
 ---pagebreak--- 7.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 305/13
both resident in Belgium, when the couple are insured on a                 Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo Ripa di Meana
voluntary basis under the Belgian social security scheme in                and European Parliament was brought before the Court of
respect of health insurance?                                               Justice of the European Communities on 8 October 2002 by
                                                                           Carlo Ripa di Meana, represented by Wilma Viscardini and
                                                                           Gabriele Donà.
( 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).                                        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;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                     —      declare admissible the application in Case T-127/01;
Modena, Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari by
order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the Criminal                        —      refer Case T-127/01 back to the Court of First Instance
             Proceedings against Christian Lanzotti                               for judgment on the substance;
                          (Case C-359/02)                                  —      order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
                                                                                  appeal and of proceedings at first instance on the matter
                          (2002/C 305/21)                                         of admissibility.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           Pleas and main arguments
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                    By order of 9 July 2002, the Court of First Instance upheld the
preliminary ruling in the Criminal Proceedings against Chris-              objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Parliament
tian Lanzotti on the following question:                                   in Case T-127/01 and, accordingly, declared inadmissible the
                                                                           application made by Mr Ripa di Meana for annulment of the
Are national rules such as Articles 4(1), 4a and 4b of the Italian         decision of the European Parliament of 26 March 2001
Law No 401/89, as amended by Article 37 of Law No 388/00,                  suspending the applicant’s pension as former Member of the
which prohibit and make subject to criminal penalties the                  European Parliament following his election to the legislative
pursuit by any person in any place of the activities of taking,            assembly for the Region of Umbria.
accepting, booking and forwarding bets placed, in particular
on sporting events, without obtaining the prior authorisation
and licence required by domestic law, compatible with                      In particular, the Court of First Instance held Mr Ripa di
Article 43 et seq. and Article 49 et seq. EC on the freedom                Meana’s application to be out of time inasmuch as the letter of
of establishment and the freedom to provide cross-border                   26 March 2001, not containing any new information not
services?                                                                  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’.
Appeal brought on 8 October 2002 by Carlo Ripa di
Meana against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the                    Mr Ripa di Meana is challenging that order on the ground that
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                       it is vitiated by a number of manifest errors of law.
European Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo
            Ripa di Meana and European Parliament
                                                                           In particular, Mr Ripa di Meana claims that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance: committed an error of procedure; infringed the rights
                         (Case C-360/02 P)                                 of the defence; attributed the wrong legal classification to the
                                                                           letters of 26 January 2001 and 26 March 2001. Furthermore,
                          (2002/C 305/22)                                  the Court of First Instance misapplied Community case-law
                                                                           concerning confirmatory acts and did not take account of
                                                                           case-law regarding ‘excusable error’.
An appeal against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European