The Council of State has suspended the cancellation from the "Register of Operators responsible for the collection of public gaming using gaming machines with cash prizes (RIES)" ordered by the Customs and Monopolies Agency against an operator.
In the order accepting the appeal proposed by an operator, the Council of State suspended the ruling of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, which had confirmed the legitimacy of the provision of the Customs and Monopoli Administration (A.D.M.) of cancellation from the "List of subjects carrying out activity functional to the collection of public gaming through gaming machines with cash prizes (RIES)", as "there is serious and irreparable damage given by the circumstance that the cancellation provision entails, pursuant to art. 5 of the directorial decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance dated 9 September 2011, the impossibility of obtaining registration for a period of 5 years". The judges of Palazzo Spada specified that, with the provision challenged in the first instance, the Administration ordered the aforementioned cancellation from the RIES "without assessing whether the qualification produced by the appellant with the procedural brief is actually a suitable qualification pursuant to the art. 86 of the Consolidated Law on Public Security Laws (TULPS)". This omission, the judges underline, "seems not to have taken into account that art. 5 of the directorial decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance refers, as requirement for registration in the list, the absence of provisions for cancellation from the list due to loss of requirements that prevent the maintenance of registration". The aforementioned art. Indeed, according to the Council of State, article 5 would require that "the existence of the requirement be assessed with reference to the date of the cancellation order and not the date of the original registration, as instead assessed with the contested provision in the first instance". Therefore, the judges conclude, "the Administration should have assessed whether the qualification produced by the appellant with the procedural brief constitutes a requirement that allows, as a suitable qualification, the maintenance of registration for the period following the production of the qualification itself".