Vlt rooms dedicated to (only) one concessionaire

AAMS, following a base normative structure obviously with some gaps (seeing that, among the operators of the field, begun to circulate multiple supply agreements between operators of rooms and several concessionaires) made up by explicitly imposing the inability to host variuos gaming platforms linked to more than one network concessionaire, through some measures. According to the judges of Lazio, those had been "explanatory acts of Aams" that "interprets the law" but not "integrate" or "put in execution giving realization” a provision of law. Therefore, the AAMS memo does not create nothing: it simply reaffirms. But if the question appeared a little bit 'obvious' to some people, actually the situation was not simple, to the point that it needed a sentence of twenty pages to justify the decision of the Regional Administrative Court in a dispute where - among petitioners and constituents ad opponendum and adiuvandum - four network concessionaires, two associations, as well as the Administration of State Monopolies attended.

But if the principle that links to a 'dedicated environment' only one concessionaire and its own platform (or platforms, seeing that, in virtue and in a complementary way to the univocity, it is possible to install multiple gaming platforms from different manufacturers provided that thay will be linked to the same concessionaire) was clarified by Aams through the above-mentioned memo of 2010, it created anyway serious doubts to the operators and in particular to the petitioner company, supported in the suit by the Ascob association (seeing that the specific vlt room was housed in a bingo hall) who believed that this restriction was a "restriction of freedom of competition", without a suitable normative provision. A inevitably debatable thesis for the Administration that is persuaded of the impossibility to see a restriction of freedom of competition, because such a measure would not meet the needs of technical nature of the vlts, but that the protection of interests even higher has been assured, as the player's assignment and the public order, which the reference rules of the vlt unequivocally presuppose it.

The principle of univocity is provided in the legislation that regulates vlts because of various requirements for technical specifications of these gaming products. It is enough to think to the communication system that each concessionaires must make for each room and to the the difficulties that would result in the communication of two (or more) concessionaires cohabiting in the same room. Not to mention the technical requirements due to the existence of the jackpot that is the base of the videolotteries. The rule affirms that the maximum amount of the jackpot for each room must be of 100 thousand euros and from a technical point of view the management by two or more cohabitant concessionaires of this jackpot system seems impossible, taking into account that the gaming systems are not technically designed by the regulations of the field to have contacts between them.

The case in question was submitted to the attention of the administrative judge (with a petition that dates back to March 2011) who decided not to grant the suspension of the contested measure required by the petitioners and so it remained applicable and in force. At least until last October 12, the date fixed by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court to discus this case. But then we arrived until August 2012 for the final judgment.