Points of Sale and Collection, it is up to the installing company to verify the type of use of the gaming machines and to ascertain whether the user has the authorizations
The Court of Appeal of Potenza, with a recent ruling in partial reform of the sentence of the Judge of the Court of Potenza, confirmed the sanction also imposed on the installation company of appliances for violation of art. 110 co. 9 letter Fbis TULPS.
The story dates back to 2016 when, at the end of an inspection by A.D.M., it was ascertained that within a Resale "sports betting acceptance activities were carried out in the absence of the prescribed authorization pursuant to art. 88 TULPS, thus integrating the details for the application of the administrative sanction imposed on the latter". The First Instance Judge, in acceptance of the appeal, excluded any profile of liability of the installing company, which in 2013 had limited itself to the installation of the aforementioned legal and authorized amusement machines pursuant to art. 86 T.U.L.P.S., as resulting from the contract of 13.05.2013. In other words, according to the first judge, given that at the date of the installation of the three machines, the commercial activity carried out by the owner of the tobacconist was to be carried out in accordance with the law, the installation company could not be held guilty "since 'last obligation to verify the correct use of the machines and to supervise the lawful destination of the premises by its owner". The Court of Appeal of Potenza, however, with the above Judgement published a few days ago, confirmed the aforementioned sanction also against the installation company, since "simple fault and the error on the lawfulness of the conduct connected to good faith can be detected in terms of exclusion of administrative liability only when it is inevitable and that, for this purpose, it is necessary to trace a positive element, extraneous to the perpetrator of the infringement suitable for integrating the n him the conviction of the aforementioned lawfulness, in addition to the conviction that the author has done everything possible to observe the law and that no reproach can be made, so that the error is not likely to be prevented by the interested party with the 'ordinary diligence'", elements not found, according to the Court itself, in the conduct of the installation company of the appliances in question. After all, the Court continues, "due to the way the administrative dispute was structured also against the installing company, it was the latter's responsibility, when it proceeded to install the amusement machines at the commercial exercise. , with adequate diligence, the type of use to which the aforementioned were intended and ensure that the user was provided with any authorizations or, for what is relevant here, the administrative authorization provided for by art. 88 of the TULPS" . Furthermore, the ruling continues, "the existence of a contract stipulated on 8.03.2013 between the bookmaker and the tobacconist resale, which is acknowledged in the dispute report, a contract concerning the regulation of gambling and evidently prior to compliance to that concluded by the aforementioned resale with the company, dated 05.13.2013, it was a factual circumstance that had to be ascertained by the latter in order to be able to exclude the recurrence of the fault of the aforementioned" and the Company itself "has not attached or circumstances proved suitable to consider that an error occurred on the lawfulness of the conduct linked to good faith, relevant in terms of exclusion of administrative liability as it is inevitable, since no positive element was found, extraneous to the perpetrator of the infringement, suitable for integrating in this 'last the conviction of the aforementioned lawfulness, which could be, for example, a willful concealment of the s contractual tattooing mentioned above by the owner of the business where the installation in question took place".