Tuscany administrative court overturns 12-day betting-shop suspension

Tuscany's Regional Administrative Court has ruled unlawful a 12-day suspension that the Pisa police commissioner imposed on a betting shop with VLT terminals, according to the judgment. The court found that the administration had not established the customer's alleged minority through legally valid means. The decision is contained in judgment 2095/2026, published on 30 October 2026, in which the court's Fourth Section upheld the operator company's appeal.

The case began with an inspection in 2024 at the authorised betting shop, where VLT gambling was also offered. Officers found a person without identity documents using one of the terminals; the person was later classified as a minor and the police commissioner opened an administrative procedure aimed at suspending the business. The notice opening the procedure also cited the presence of nine people with criminal or police records inside the premises and one other person close to the business, and referred to an earlier closure ordered by the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli over a violation concerning the presence of minors, which the administration treated as repetition of the conduct. The court noted that the earlier episode dated back about a year, contrary to what the administrative charge suggested. After receiving the company's defence submissions, accompanied by a report on further security measures adopted, the police commissioner ordered the licences suspended for 12 days.

On the central point, the court held that the administration's evidence was insufficient to attribute minority to the person identified. It cited provisions governing age assessment, including article 19-bis of legislative decree 142/2015, article 8 of DPR 448/1988 and rules on the registration and monitoring of unaccompanied foreign minors. According to the court, the finding could not rest solely on the person's statements, which were not recorded in the inspection report, nor on the photo-identification sheet from the central identity register, which lacked further elements documenting age with certainty. The judgment states that a lawful assessment of the person's real age in the forms prescribed by law was entirely lacking. The ruling does not establish that the person was of age, but holds that minority was not adequately proven by the administration.

The court also addressed age-verification duties, referring to its earlier judgment 429 of 2 March 2026, which excluded that article 7, paragraph 8, of decree-law 158/2012 creates an absolute obligation to systematically request identity documents from all visitors to a gaming hall. Under that interpretation, the operator has a margin of assessment in checks, including in relation to the customer's apparent age. In this case the judges examined the photographic documentation attached to the identification sheet and found no evident elements that should have led staff to suspect the person was a minor, so it was considered excessively onerous to hold the company liable for not requesting a document. The decision does not remove the ban on underage gambling or the control obligations under the law, but clarifies that operator liability must be assessed in light of the concrete circumstances and applicable provisions.

The court further upheld the appeal ground that the company's observations during the administrative procedure had not been assessed. The defence had documented additional security and control measures, but the judges found these had not been effectively considered; the contested measure referred to a future implementation of control systems, while the documentation showed the works had already been carried out before the suspension was adopted. As for the other elements initially cited by the police commissioner, such as the presence of people with police records, the court observed that some had been dropped from the reasoning of the final measure while others were used only to set the length of the suspension.

The suspension had already been served. In December 2024 the court rejected a request for interim protection, finding the requirement of extremely serious and urgent harm not adequately shown, and the company later waived the collegiate interim application because the 12 days had already been served. In a brief filed on 21 September 2026 the appellant confirmed its interest in a ruling on the measure's unlawfulness with a view to possible compensation claims. The court therefore applied article 34, paragraph 3, of the administrative procedure code, declaring the police commissioner's decree unlawful rather than annulling it, since annulment no longer had practical utility. The judgment awards no damages but recognises the measure's unlawfulness for any later compensation action.

The Fourth Section of the Tuscany court, presided over by Riccardo Giani with Luigi Viola as drafting judge, upheld the appeal of the company represented by lawyer Cino Benelli and declared the suspension measure unlawful. The respondent administrations were ordered to pay €2,000, plus VAT and a social security contribution, as legal costs. The court did not examine the merits of the question of the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli's exclusive competence to apply sanctions for violations concerning minors' access to gaming halls, considering it absorbed by the upholding of the main grounds. The judgment also notes that ADM had adopted a separate sanctioning measure concerning the same episode, still under judicial review at the time of the decision.