Campania regional administrative court upholds betting licence refusal in Torre Annunziata

The Campania Regional Administrative Court (TAR Campania) has rejected an appeal by a company against the refusal of a public security licence for a betting shop in Torre Annunziata, in the province of Naples. The judgment was published on 26 October 2026. The court confirmed the refusal, which was based on the revocation of the shop's previous authorisation and on the failure to meet the minimum distance from sensitive locations set by regional rules.

According to the judgment, continuity of the company and of its business organisation is not enough to keep the exemption from distance limits once the authorisation that allowed the activity has lapsed. The shop obtained a licence under article 88 of the consolidated public security law (Tulps) in 2017, and in 2018 the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli authorised it to collect bets. In July 2022 the Questura revoked the licence, after an earlier three-month suspension. In October 2022 the company's shares were transferred to new owners, who later joined a different concessionaire, and in December 2022 the ADM issued that concessionaire the authorisation to collect bets at the same premises.

The company applied for a new public security licence in January 2023. The municipality told the Questura that reopening the shop would amount to a new opening and that the premises were about 100 metres from a place of worship, against a minimum of 250 metres under Campania regional law no. 2 of 2020 and the municipal regulation. The Questura then refused the request.

In its appeal the company argued that this was not a new opening, citing the persistence of the same legal entity, premises and business organisation. It said the transfer of shares and the change of concessionaire had not interrupted the continuity of an activity already authorised before the regional rules took effect. The court rejected that reading, finding that the regional rules protect pre-existing, lawfully authorised activities but do not give premises a permanent exemption from distance limits. The revocation in July 2022 had ended that continuity before the shares were transferred, so the later survival of the company, premises and organisation could not revive a revoked authorisation or restore the exemption for pre-existing activities.

The court also held that the authorisation issued within the concession network and the new relationship with the concessionaire operate on a different level from the public security licence, and so cannot overcome the obstacles arising from the regional rules on the location of gambling outlets. It further found that the Interior Ministry circular of 21 May 2018, on changes of ownership, concessionaire or representatives of pre-existing premises, does not provide for keeping the exemption when a premises reopens after a licence revocation and cannot derogate from regional law.

The court declared inadmissible, as out of time, the part of the appeal concerning the municipal act of January 2023, and rejected the remaining claims, confirming the refusal of the licence. Court costs were offset between the parties.