TAR Lombardia suspends VLT licence revocation at Trescore Balneario venue

The TAR for Lombardy, Brescia branch, second section, has suspended the revocation of a licence to install VLT machines at a gaming venue in Trescore Balneario, in the province of Bergamo. In a decree of 17 October 2026, the president of the second section ordered the suspension of the contested measures, allowing both gaming and the food and beverage service connected to the venue to resume.

The case concerns the decision by the Bergamo police headquarters to revoke the licence issued under article 88 of the consolidated public security law (TULPS). The measure rested on two inspections carried out by the local police on 19 June and 14 July 2026, during which, between 7am and 7.30am, a greater number of customers was recorded in the bar than in the gaming room, which was unused at the time. According to the police headquarters, this indicated a reversal of the relationship between the main gaming activity and the ancillary food and beverage activity. The absence of signs and adequate signage would also have helped conceal the gaming room, with the risk of circumventing provisions protecting vulnerable people, including the ban on gambling by minors and any time bands during which activity must be interrupted.

The applicants, represented by Studio Giacobbe with lawyers Luca Giacobbe and Livio Sannino, disputed that reconstruction, arguing that a higher number of bar customers in a specific time band was not enough to show that the ancillary activity had taken on a main role. They pointed to the prevalence of revenue from gaming, the presence of identifying elements of the room, marked by the sign "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas Italy Room", and the separation of the internal spaces used for the two activities. They also said the municipality of Trescore Balneario had not yet regulated the opening and closing hours of gaming rooms, and contested the suggestion that the venue was organised to get around possible time restrictions.

In assessing the request, the president of the TAR held that the elements gathered during the inspections were not sufficient to justify revocation. A busier bar than gaming room in a given time band is not in itself significant evidence of a reversal of the relationship between the two activities, and it is plausible that the food and beverage service records higher attendance than the gaming room in the early morning. The decree also notes that, without municipal rules on the opening and closing hours of gaming rooms, the premise for supposing that the bar was used to circumvent the obligation to deactivate AWP and VLT machines in certain time bands was lacking. The judge adds that any regulation of hours could take account of the possibility of deactivating the machines, allowing the needs of gaming to be distinguished from those of the food and beverage service.

Another central point concerned the need to demonstrate concretely that the bar was used as a means of directing customers towards gambling, in particular minors or other vulnerable people. According to the president of the TAR, a challenge based on that hypothesis would have required more specific elements, including proof of episodes in which such people moved from the bar to the gaming room and verification of the absence of adequate signs or physical separation between the two environments. In this case, the local police had limited themselves to recording the number of customers in the bar and the simultaneous absence of customers in the gaming room. The applicants documented during the proceedings the presence of adequate external signage and produced floor plans which, according to the judge, appear to show a concrete separation and differentiation of the spaces. Any further need to distinguish between the two activities could be addressed through specific prescriptions by the police headquarters, without necessarily resorting to revocation of the licence.

On those grounds the TAR granted the request for single-judge interim measures and suspended the contested measures, allowing activities to resume. The dispute will continue in the collegial interim phase, scheduled for the council chamber hearing on 11 November 2026.