You are on page 1of 1

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