CELEX: C2001/200/50
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2000 in Case C-89/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Catanzaro v Patrizia Caffarelli (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)

C 200/28                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                                14.7.2001
                       ORDER OF THE COURT                                                              ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                                 (Third Chamber)
                         of 15 December 2000                                                             of 15 December 2000
in Case C-88/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        in Case C-89/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Genova v Umberto                           the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Catanzaro v Patrizia
                                  Merlo (1)                                                                     Caffarelli (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
     identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)                          identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
                             (2001/C 200/49)                                                                 (2001/C 200/50)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-88/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                    In Case C-89/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                     (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Questore di Genova and Umberto                        before that court between Questore di Catanzaro and Patrizia
Merlo on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty                  Caffarelli on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC
on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third Chamber),                     Treaty on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-                          Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-
P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-                      er, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an                       Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as                    order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                                        follows:
The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not                  The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which           preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,         reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed   if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions         to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those                  which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.                                                                     objectives.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                       (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.