Tuscany regional court overturns 10-day suspension of Florence gaming hall licences

A company running a gaming hall in Florence won its appeal before the Tuscany regional administrative court, whose Second Section annulled the police chief's order suspending its public security licences for ten days. The judges reached the decision in their chambers session of 29 September 2026.

Two matters lay at the centre of the case: two minors who entered the premises, and a person present during an inspection who was considered not authorised to represent the business owner. Over the minors' entry, the ADM had already moved against the administrative offence and applied the corresponding penalties. The other episode involved a partner of the company, whom the police regarded as lacking the authorisation required for representative functions under articles 8 and 93 of the TULPS. Even though defence observations had been filed during the administrative procedure, the police chief still suspended the licences for ten days.

Lawyer Cino Benelli assisted and defended the company that brought the appeal. The defence argued that the police suspension amounted to an extra sanction for conduct the ADM had already sanctioned, which would breach the ne bis in idem principle. As to the second episode, it challenged the idea that a partner being present now and then could be enough to prove unauthorised representation. According to the company, the person identified during the inspection was a partner rather than someone outside the business. The company further stated that the owner's absence had been wholly episodic, and that the appointed manager had been away only temporarily, for documented health reasons.

The court accepted both lines of argument put forward by the company. On the minors, the judges recalled that the authority to contest and impose penalties under the rules on underage gambling, including a possible closure of the business, lies with the competent local office of the ADM. Since the agency had already applied the penalties set by law, the panel found the police chief's further measure for the same facts unlawful. The decision refers in particular to the Grande Stevens v Italy judgment of 4 March 2014. In the tribunal's view, closing a business for ten days, especially on top of measures already applied by the competent authority, imposes an economic and operational burden heavy enough to count as a penal sanction under the criteria of the European court. The police measure was also judged disproportionate and insufficiently reasoned, in part because it offered no concrete assessment of whether the irregularities might happen again. The court stressed that using the suspension power cannot depend only on finding a violation that other provisions have already sanctioned.

On the second episode, the court cited Court of Cassation case law that representation under article 93 of the TULPS presupposes an appointment with a degree of stability and managerial autonomy. It concluded that a partner's occasional presence during a temporary absence of the owner or manager is not in itself sufficient proof of unauthorised representation. The court said the police should have examined more closely the duties the person actually performed. It also found that the administration's judgment of unreliability rested on generic references to the seriousness of the violations and the time since the licences were issued. The court noted that where a measure rests on several integrated grounds, the unlawfulness of one can lead to annulment of the whole measure.

The panel was chaired by Carlo Modica de Mohac di Grisì, who also wrote the ruling. The court ordered that legal costs be offset between the parties. On costs, it said the second episode, while insufficient to justify the suspension, had still shown a degree of managerial disorganisation or superficiality.