The lawyer Riccardo Ripamonti (Ripamonti Law Firm), author of the work “THE PVR MANUAL” (available on Amazon at the following link: https://amzn.eu/d/2ernreH), gave Jamma a brief comment on the text of the reform legislative decree which will soon be examined by the Council of Ministers, with particular reference to the remote gaming sector and the specific figure of Sales and Top-up Points (PVR).
These are the words of the lawyer. Riccardo Ripamonti.
“Regarding the figure of the PVR, I believe that the text of the “legislative decree” prepared in implementation of the art. 15 Law 9 August 2023 n. 111 posters of different critical issues. Among all, I would like to point out the following.
1) The art. 13 paragraph 1 of the decree states the following: “The Agency (ADM) establishes and maintains the register for the registration, exclusively electronically, of the owners of ordinary or special resales, of monopoly products authorized to collect public games, as well as of subjects who carry out the activities of top-up sales points. holders of authorizations pursuant to articles 86 or 88 of the TULPS, authorized, by virtue of specific contractual agreements signed with the dealers, without exclusive mandate constraints, to carry out the aforementioned activities, upon payment of the point of sale fee and recharge”. This provision must be read in conjunction with the Explanatory Report of the decree, which, having regard to this provision, clarifies that it is expected that "for these points, a special register will be established and maintained by ADM (for the purpose of a clear and transparent identification of which and how many there are such points), in which the owners of the top-up sales points will have to register (paragraph 1) to enter into contracts with the various dealers , without exclusive mandate constraints”. The following follows from this. On the one hand, it is certainly clear that ADM, with future implementation measures, will establish a register in which the owners of sales points will have to "register" - by paying a certain amount of money (200,00 euros for the first year; 150,00 euros, XNUMX for each subsequent year) - for the purposes of carrying out the PVR activity. The critical issue arises, however, with reference to the types of commercial establishments which, starting from the (future) implementation of this reform, will be able to register in this register and, consequently, carry out PVR activities. Indeed, according to the literal tenor of the provision, it would seem that only those who can register on the said "register" are "owners of ordinary or special retailers of monopoly goods authorized to collect public games”, as well as the “subjects who carry out point of sale and top-up activities and holders of authorizations pursuant to articles. 86 or 88 of the TULPS" if this were the case, however, numerous commercial businesses would risk being cut off from the possibility of carrying out PVR activities. Such a "subjective restriction" - assuming it is confirmed and not granted - would risk appearing not only unjustified (given that it is not clear why the "selected" categories are more "reliable" than others), but also and above all at risk of unconstitutionality (for violation of Article 76 of the Constitution), as ultraneous compared to the operational limits that Parliament had imposed on the Government through Delegation Law no. 111/2023, which, upon closer inspection, does not appear to have required a "selection" in this sense.
2) A similar problem also seems to emerge with reference to the "activities" of the PVRs, from which it will have to be excluded - according to the text of the reform - "any withdrawal of the sums lying in the gaming account and the payment of winnings”. Preclusions of a similar nature are then also confirmed by the definition of "Sales and Charging Point" provided by the art. 1 letter r) of the same decree, pursuant to which "sales and charging point" must be understood as "the location of the physical gaming network whose owner, authorized to collect public games, is chosen and contracted directly by the concessionaire for the sole provision of services exclusively ancillary to remote public gaming, consisting of assistance to the player in opening, recharging and closing of the gaming account, exclusively with electronic payment instruments, excluding in any case both the offer of remote gaming and the movement of sums, including those resulting from bets, deposited in the player's gaming account”. Now, with reference to the prohibition on "gaming offers", as well as "payment of winnings", nothing new: the PVR, as is known, cannot carry out the typical activity of a betting agency, under penalty of the crime of "intermediation ” in collecting bets, punished pursuant to art. 4 l. 401/89. Having said this, the main - questionable - operational innovation concerns, upon closer inspection, the prohibition on "withdrawal" or in any case "movement" of the sums deposited in the player's gaming account. In essence, this is the much-discussed possibility for the player to "withdraw" the funds contained in his gaming account directly from the PVR (a practice which is often mistakenly assimilated to the - very different - "payment of winnings ” by the PVR). However, analyzing the text of the Delegation Law, we do not find a specific provision on the basis of which the Government was asked to regulate this operational profile. The Delegation Law, as regards PVRs, is in fact limited to only providing for the exclusion of "offer of remote gaming" and "payment of the related winnings": the exclusion of the "withdrawal" from the player's gaming account (obviously following a withdrawal request made by the latter to the Concessionaire) it therefore seems to go beyond the boundaries dictated by the Legislator, thus risking violating the art. 76 of the Constitution. The same applies, however, with reference to the use of only "electronic payment instruments", regarding which the Delegation Law does not appear to have ruled, at least in relation to the activity carried out by PVRs.
These, at first glance, would appear to be the main possible critical issues that the reform text manifests in terms of PVR. For the rest, there does not seem to be any particular innovation: for example, the "responsibility" of the Concessionaire with respect to the correct and legal offer and collection of the game (art. 16 decree), which is why - presumably - the burden of "training" its own PVR network will remain the responsibility of the Concessionaire, having regard to the regulations relating to them: a burden which, in fact, is already foreseen by the current legislation.
We now await the approval of the definitive text and the subsequent implementation of these provisions; the fact is, however, that even the possible definitive approval of such a text by the Council of Ministers should not lead to the immediate application of the relevant provisions, being - the application of the same - subordinate to the prior and future adoption by of ADM, of the necessary implementing measures of the reform".
