Case C-359/02: 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
Date: 2002-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, freedom to provide services, frontier region, game of chance, interpretation of the law, right of establishment

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’.