Calabria regional court rejects betting-shop owner’s interim licence appeal

The Calabria Regional Administrative Court (Tar), Reggio Calabria section, has rejected a request to suspend the police decision that denied betting and VLT authorisations for premises in Rosarno. The order, published on 5 November 2026, concerns an appeal by the owner of a sole-proprietor business against a decision of the Reggio Calabria police chief.

The police chief's decision was signed on 27 July 2026 and notified on 3 August. It rejected the application for the licence under article 88 of the TULPS for the main betting activity, together with the authorisation for the ancillary installation of VLT gaming systems. The refusal was based on the absence of the personal requirements set out in article 11 of the TULPS. The owner asked for the decision to be annulled, with its effect suspended beforehand, and also challenged the investigative acts on which the police based it.

In examining the interim request, the Tar found that the appeal lacked the necessary fumus boni iuris, in light of the elements gathered by the administration. The panel referred in particular to the exposure of the gaming and betting sector to criminal associations, which it described as especially active in the area concerned. According to the judges, the evidence as a whole indicated that the applicant habitually spent time, including at night, in public places and in cars, with people deemed unsuitable given public order and security needs. The order states that anyone wishing to operate in the sector may be required to show prudence and caution in choosing whom they associate with. The Tar held that this requirement could not be faulted at the interim stage in the terms put forward by the applicant, including his arguments about his young age and social needs.

The panel also ruled out periculum in mora, on the grounds that the economic harm the applicant described can be compensated. The court ordered the applicant to pay €800 to the Interior Ministry, plus statutory additions. The decision concerns the interim phase of the case and is not a final ruling on the appeal for annulment of the refusal.