Bari appeal court rules ordinary PCs are not gaming machines

The Court of Appeal of Bari has upheld in full an appeal by the holder of a gaming point against an injunction order issued by the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (ADM). The ruling, in proceeding no. 490/2024, concerns a challenge to injunction order no. 400 of 7 March 2017, issued by the Amministrazione dei Monopoli for an alleged breach of article 7, paragraph 3-quater, of decree-law no. 158/2012, converted by law no. 189/2012, with reference to the sanctions regime under the 2016 Stability Law.

The court held that the aim of preventing pathological gambling, while worthy of protection, cannot justify extending prohibitions indiscriminately to conduct that differs in nature and potential harm. The disputed rules would have covered access to both lawful and unlawful gambling as well as equipment generally capable of connecting to the internet. The court focused on the distinction between machines permanently dedicated to collecting gambling and ordinary devices used for internet browsing, such as personal computers.

The court relied on the principles of reasonableness and proportionality set out in article 3 of the Italian constitution, together with the protection of freedom of private economic initiative under article 41. It found that applying the same sanction to substantially different conduct, without an adequate distinction between tools intended for gambling and devices with ordinary purposes, would produce a regime that is disproportionate to the situations considered.

By judgment no. 1250/2026, the Court of Appeal of Bari granted the main appeal in full against the contested administrative measure. The decision states the need to avoid ordinary personal computers being automatically treated as equivalent to the machines regulated by article 110 of the consolidated public security law (TULPS), which are intended for collecting gambling. The principle set out is that the actual function of devices and the nature of the conduct alleged must be assessed, avoiding generalised equivalences that do not take account of differences between situations. The gaming point holder was represented by lawyer Mariateresa Parrelli.