Council of State upholds Veneto betting and VLT licence refusal within 400 metres
Regulation2 min read
Italy’s Council of State rejected an appeal in a judgment published on 11 November 2026, upholding the refusal of betting and VLT licences in Colognola ai Colli. The premises were less than 400 metres from an occupational-medicine outpatient clinic, which the court deemed protected under Veneto law. The operator said care was mainly delivered at client companies; the court cited four authorised treatment rooms and evidence of services on site.
Italy’s Council of State rejected an appeal against the refusal of betting and VLT licences in Colognola ai Colli, in a judgment published on 11 November 2026. The court held that an occupational-medicine clinic was among the sensitive sites protected by Veneto’s distance rules for gambling premises.
Verona police had refused the application after a negative opinion from the Verona Est municipal union, because the proposed premises were less than 400 metres from an authorised occupational-medicine clinic. The parties did not dispute that the premises were within the regional distance limit. The Veneto administrative court had previously upheld the refusal in judgment 1598/2025.
The Council of State cited Veneto law 38/2019, which prohibits gambling and betting halls and gambling machines in premises less than 400 metres from hospitals and outpatient, residential or semi-residential health or social-care facilities. The distance is measured along the shortest pedestrian route.
The operator argued that the clinic was essentially an administrative office and that services were provided at client companies rather than on site. The court said the clinic’s plans showed four treatment rooms, a decisive factor in its assessment. That configuration had remained in place from the initial authorisation in 2011 through its renewal in March 2026, which expires in 2031. The judges said those elements made the claim that the building contained only administrative offices unreasonable.
The clinic’s service charter said appointments could be booked at reception and services provided at the clinic could be paid for there. The court said commercial material cited by the appellant, offering workplace visits including by camper van, did not establish that all healthcare activity took place off site. It observed that occupational-medicine services could serve private patients as well as companies seeking mandatory health surveillance.
The court found the local authority’s inquiry adequate, saying it had examined the plans and service charter to verify that the clinic operated on the premises.