The Sardinia Regional Administrative Court rejected a betting operator's request to suspend the police authority's revocation of its licence. The operator challenged the decision, which cited serious social-security contribution irregularities; the court declined interim relief.
The ruling leaves the licence revocation in effect while the operator's challenge proceeds.
The day’s most important stories, free. One email a day.
The Tuscany Regional Administrative Court upheld the revocation of a public-security licence for a VLT venue in Prato, ruling on 17 August 2026 that changing its entrance without specific notice affected the venue’s supervisability. The court rejected the operators’ arguments that the change was shown in a submitted plan and that suspension would have been sufficient.
The Campania Regional Administrative Court rejected an operator’s appeal and upheld the Benevento police chief’s revocation of its video lottery terminal and betting licences. The authority cited business relationships with people linked to criminal settings; the court found the assessment reasonable despite the licensee having no criminal record.
Campania’s regional administrative court rejected a betting agency owner’s appeal against the Naples police authority’s revocation of his public security licence. The court found the authority could assess whether the holder remained reliable based on serious indications of risk, without waiting for final criminal convictions.
The Calabria Regional Administrative Court rejected a betting-shop owner’s appeal against the Cosenza police chief’s revocation of the shop’s licence and gaming-machine authorisation. The court upheld the decision, citing the owner’s association with people with criminal records and finding that the evidence supported concerns about his reliability.
The Puglia Regional Administrative Court partly upheld an individual business owner’s appeal and annulled the Brindisi police order revoking a public-security licence for a betting and public-games business. The court found that the owner had not been given an opportunity to respond and that the order inadequately explained the current public interest; it rejected the compensation claim.