Parma TAR rules slot replacement counts as new installation under distance rules

The TAR Emilia-Romagna, Parma section, rejected an appeal by the owner of a commercial venue against measures taken by the Comune di Reggio Emilia over five AWP machines installed within 500 metres of sensitive locations, according to a judgment published on 20 October 2026 and. The court found that replacing the machines with physically different devices, identified by new codes, constituted a new installation under the Emilia-Romagna distance rules.

Following checks by the Polizia municipale, violations of regional law n. 5/2013 were contested, with fines of €9,000 per machine, €45,000 in total, and seals placed on the devices to stop game collection immediately. The case concerned the September 2023 replacement of five machines previously connected to one concessionaire's network with five devices connected through a different concessionaire.

The venue owner argued that the operation was not a new installation, saying the contractual relationship with the incoming concessionaire dated to 2014, before the stricter regional provisions were introduced, and that an earlier contract allowed the machines to remain. The owner also disputed the interpretation in regional deliberation n. 831/2017 concerning the connection of machines to telematic networks.

The court found that the five machines were new and different from those previously in the venue, as shown by their identification codes in official systems, making article 6, paragraph 2-bis, of regional law n. 5/2013 directly applicable. That provision prohibits new installation of lawful gaming machines in premises less than 500 metres from sensitive locations, measured by the shortest pedestrian route. The court held that the question of contract renewal or transfer between concessionaires was superseded by the finding that the devices had been physically replaced.

The TAR also rejected further claims concerning an alleged lack of investigation, the operator's reliance on the pre-existing contract and doubts over the constitutional legitimacy of the regional rules. It declared unfounded the Region's preliminary objection that the appeal was late, finding that the Comune, in rejecting the request for annulment in self-protection, had carried out a new assessment of the evidence and arguments. The appeal was rejected in full.

The court ordered the appellant to pay legal costs of €1,500 to the Regione Emilia-Romagna and €1,500 to the Comune, plus statutory additions.