The Council of State rejected with two similar rulings the appeal of a well-known public gaming concessionaire against the province of Bolzano for the annulment of the TAR ruling regarding the distance meter.
The Council of State considered that "the regulatory and jurisprudential framework expressly allows the Regions to intervene by providing minimum distances from sensitive places for the exercise of activities linked to legitimate gaming, also identifying places other than those indicated by Legislative Decree 158 of 2012, as converted.
The identification of sensitive places, within the limits of non-unreasonableness, cannot fail to fall within the discretion of the legislator, whose assessments could well, for example, be linked to the specific territorial conformation. It is no coincidence that the ruling of the Constitutional Court in question observed that the regional choices on this point were very diversified and only for some places was there a constant inclusion in the list, while specific evaluations of individual Regions were not uncommon (think of the bus or train stations).”
In this specific case they have "public purposes, being psychiatric socio-health facilities intended for people in situations of handicap or physical discomfort".
