TAR Campania upholds refusal of betting shop licence in Torre Annunziata

The TAR Campania has upheld the refusal of a betting licence sought by G.M. 365 S.r.l. for premises at corso Vittorio Emanuele III 395 in Torre Annunziata, according to the court's ruling. The court found that the earlier public-security licence had been revoked before the company applied for a new authorisation, so the premises did not keep an exemption from the regional 250-metre distance rule. The premises are about 100 metres from a church.

The premises were authorised in March 2017 under a licence issued pursuant to article 88 TULPS, and in 2018 ADM authorised betting collection at the site. The public-security licence was suspended for three months in April 2022 and revoked on 14 July 2022. In October 2022 all shares in the company were transferred to new shareholders, who also chose a new concessionaire. On 21 December 2022 ADM issued the new concessionaire the title to collect at the same premises, and on 2 January 2023 the company's new representative applied to the Questura for a licence in her own name.

During the proceedings the municipality said the reopening would amount to a new opening and that the premises were about 100 metres from the Chiesa dello Spirito Santo, below the 250-metre minimum set by regional law and referred to in the municipal regulation. After a pre-refusal notice and the interested party's observations, the Commissariato di Torre Annunziata refused the licence on 15 February 2023.

G.M. 365 disputed the classification of the application as a new opening. The company said the activity had been authorised before Campania regional law no. 2/2020, that the premises had not changed use and that the share transfer had not altered the identity of the undertaking. It claimed the protection provided for pre-existing activities, arguing that neither the revocation nor the change of concessionaire could cancel the premises' previous use for betting collection.

The court rejected that reading. It said the regional rules preserved the continuation of activities already lawfully authorised, including where the holder changes, but did not give the property a permanent exemption from the distance limit once the title had ended. In this case the licence was revoked before the shares were transferred, so the application was for a new title after the previous authorisation had ceased, not a simple change of representative of an undertaking still authorised.

The court accepted that the share transfer had not changed the company's identity and did not amount to a transfer of the business. It held, however, that the survival of the company, the premises and the economic organisation did not restore effect to the revoked licence, and that even accepting the business continuity argued by the applicant, the public-security title remained broken.

The new affiliation with another concessionaire and the title relating to the concession network were treated as separate from the public-security licence and did not remove the distance requirement applying to the new application. The court also ruled that the Interior Ministry circular of 21 May 2018 could not preserve the exemption after revocation, as it concerned changes of ownership, concessionaire or representatives of pre-existing premises and in any case left regional provisions in place. The refusal was not based on any finding that the new representative was unreliable, nor on extending to her the assessments concerning the previous holder; the obstacle was the location rules applicable after the licence ceased.

On procedure, the court declared inadmissible as out of time the challenge to the SUAP notice of 13 January 2023 concerning the change of parties in the gaming machine installation activity. It examined on the merits the challenge to the betting licence refusal, which it considered timely and separate from the machines matter, since betting collection does not necessarily require their installation. The application to annul the refusal and the complaints against the procedural acts were rejected, and the court ordered the costs to be fully offset, citing the particularity of the case and the interpretive question on the relationship between corporate and authorisation continuity.