(Jamma) – The Goldbet case on the scene again in Naples, where the Court of Review, 8th Section, has fully accepted the arguments of the lawyer Marco Ripamonti, defender of the owner of the data processing connected to Goldbet.
The Ordinance rendered on 29 May 2013 is distinguished by the references: to the Judgment of the Cassation of 9.3.12; the prosecutor's burden of proof regarding the danger to public order; the now famous Costa – Cifone ruling; the extension of the relative principles to Goldbet; to the defense which has fulfilled the burden of proof regarding the requisites necessary for the acceptance of the re-examination; the rigorous checks to which Goldbet was subjected in Austria; to the equating between Goldbet and Stanley in point of discrimination.
Even the Gip at the Court of Naples, in another proceeding, accepting the request for release from seizure of the lawyer Marco Ripamonti, with decree of 24 May 2013, revoked a previous preventive seizure on premises and equipment, basing the provision on the Cassation Sentence Antelli of 18.3.2013.
Also in Salerno, the investigating judge, affirming his full agreement with the defense theses, announced a filing request with a release order dated May 31, 2013.
Lawyer Marco Ripamonti also issued a statement referring to the question of constitutionality raised by the Puglia Regional Administrative Court regarding the rule of law that centralizes the appeal proceedings of the denials at instance 88 tulps opposed by the Police Headquarters before the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction: “I am very satisfied with the countless successes achieved. Even before the three Courts of Cassation handed down on the Goldbet case, the jurisprudential trend was decidedly clear and favourable, but now there is unanimity among the Courts, which seem to have understood how Goldbet's situation in terms of discrimination is absolutely unique and more consistent than in every other operator, with a position today also corroborated by participation in the last tender for 2000 concessions, which has allowed further control over the Company' from the point of view of the protection of public order. I hope that the authorities in charge of controls in the Campania area and primarily AAMS have re-evaluated the position of the Goldbet data centers, archiving old forms for the seizure reports prepared on the basis of an obsolete assumption.
As for the question of constitutionality raised by the Puglia Regional Administrative Court in the proceeding relating to another operator, I must say that I very much appreciated and shared the provision, apparently made ex officio and without solicitation from the Defense.
Rightly, as pointed out by the Puglia TAR, the rule that centralized the proceedings in question to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Lazio TAR is eccentric and unreasonable and, in my opinion, only arose from the need to avoid unwelcome and uncontrollable jurisprudential tendencies".
