The Council of State rejected the appeal of a gaming operator against the TAR's ruling on the refusal to open a VLT room. The judges observed that “from the art. 1, paragraph 2, of lrn 17/2012 establishes, with elastic formulation, that the authorization for the operation of gaming halls cannot be granted in the case of location within a radius of 300 meters, not only of "educational institutions of any level", but also of "other institutions attended mainly by young people"
The case originates from the fact that, following a prior request for information, the Municipality had not included an institution which was later found to be decisive for the denial of the licence.
In this specific case, the Municipality of La Spezia noted the presence of an institute where professional training courses are provided, attended by around 120 young people between the ages of 14 and 18, who, having finished secondary school, preferred to complete the obligation of education established by law, by enrolling in said professional training school, in the vicinity of the place chosen for the room.
The CDS considered the institution "similar to secondary education institutions and therefore the appellant's claim to exclude the institution de quo from places considered sensitive pursuant to Regional Law 17/2012 would lead to an illogical and unjustified disparity in treatment between XXX students and other young people who have opted for a secondary school.
Nor can the failure to detect the presence of said "sensitive place" have any relevance in the response given by the Municipality of La Spezia to the operator's requests for information, which were not part of any procedural process, responding - as a courtesy – to a specific request from the appellant regarding the actual distance between the premises in which he intended to start the business and the building of S. Maria Ausiliatrice, also highlighting a further and nearby place of worship, however located at a suitable distance. These requests for information, as they are not included in the procedure for requesting the license pursuant to art. 86 of the TULPS, cannot therefore have any relevance either for termination purposes or for compensation purposes".
