Court of Taranto cancels ADM sanction for AWP violation in an unlicensed betting shop

The matter refers to a fine imposed on a manager who had installed AWP in an authorized room with a license pursuant to art. 88 tulps, connected to a well-known concessionaire. The latter, however, had been declared forfeited by the concession, with consequent automatic forfeiture of the public security title for the hall, a fact which the manager had not however realized by consulting the ADM institutional website. Hence a targeted check at the establishment, which gave rise to the complaint pursuant to art.110 paragraph 9 letter f bis tulps.
Il Court of Taranto, with Sentence dated 19.9.2023, however, annulled the injunction order, sharing the arguments of the manager's defence, supported by the lawyer Marco Ripamonti. The latter argued that the ADM portal cannot be equated with the Official Gazette and that the manager's absence of fault consisted in the obligation, fulfilled in due time, to ensure that the title for betting collection exists at the time of installation of the devices. , as it cannot extend to the subsequent duration of the contract.
The Court expressed itself in this sense, condemning ADM to pay the costs of the case, stating that only in certain cases the publication of managerial decrees on the ADM portal is equivalent to publication in the Official Journal and that, in the absence of communications on the forfeiture made to the manager, his good faith prevails, the fact of having ascertained the existence of the title when installing the AWPs is sufficient. “An unfair and Kafkaesque sanction” the lawyer defined it.Mark Ripamonti, who continues: “high a few days after the expiry of the concession, as if a manager had to go and consult the ADM portal every morning to verify that a reference concessionaire, considered reliable up to that moment, had not forfeited his title overnight. "