Bolzano: on the gambling contradictory ideas

Who knows if ever, when we talk or will talk about gamble Public, you may have non -contradictory definitions and, therefore, univoche: in practice, who knows if the same rule can be applied or interpreted from north to south of our peninsula in an equal and homogeneous way. Some doubts, sincerely, feeds because in the last year he felt "everything and his opposite" (but sometimes even when we don't speak only and expressly about play): However, at this moment, we want to examine a dictation of the Council of State on the notorious distanziometer applied in that of the province of Bolzano, a territory that as we know, has made people speak of his ordinances and dictates issued against the world of public game. It was, in fact, the first American territory on which the provincial administration wanted to trace itself to the commercial path of any playful activity and to any development of those who believed they had found "a business in the state game", above all because they are covered by the concessions to propose the legitimate offer of the game.

Thus, this development in that of Bolzano and its province has certainly not materialized. But now we want to read and disquisition the Council of State Provision called to decide on an appeal by a Bruzico game operator against the regulation issued by the Province of Bolzano for the discipline of the game points, and consequently with reference to the effect Expulsive determined by the so -called distanziometer: this appeal has been rejected, but some contradictions that are worth examining appear from this sentence. The decision is based on a "reconnaissance" that affected the structure of the game offer as well as the application and with which it is excluded that the expulsion of the game company that proposed the appeal "below can descend from the provincial discipline. the profile of absolute interdiction from the entire provincial territory ". To strengthen and support its decision, the Council of State underlines that from a strictly legal point of view, nothing different for this definitive conclusion cannot be exempted: in the presence "even a single possible location of the activity in question" cannot be concretized the expulsive effect ".

It is inevitable that towards this decision, that it does not than The best online casino platforms, a laconic comment of the As.tro Association was not presented that protects game companies: "Too bad that such a" nominal "interpretation does not take into account the connected effects" only that you actually want to look at the alteration of the reference parameters of Any commercial economic activity and two contradictions are shedding. For example, first to transfer an activity ex officio you must employ capital, since you certainly cannot carry out at no cost and, according to a transfer, what will happen if in the chosen place will be installed, again, a scheduled sensitive place In the Regulations of the Province? What would all this mean? Asks as.tro. Perhaps that the playful activities are part of a new commercial type to be considered "itinerant activity"?

In addition to all itinerant not on the basis of the decision of the entrepreneur concerned, but exactly following third party assessments, taking into account that this is mainly worth the exercises that offer game exclusively or, in any case prevalent. And undoubtedly with an ironic background as.tro still adds that in the analysis dissected by the Council of State the "prohibition trend" constitutes a "metagiuridic" category and on this last aspect whoever writes does not want to add anything else! But the outburst of the association certainly does not end here: it is added, in fact, that what the Council of State asserts takes on a particular interest where the structure of the offer is connected to that of the application, reaching the thesis of the "substantial indifference In terms of the entity of the collection and revenues of the relocation of the game rooms in the available rooms ", relocation determined by the application of the" spacer criterion ".

This further statement only wants to further support the legitimacy of the provincial discipline and to emphasize that this provision would not cause any economic damage to playful activities with its field ... and wants to be exposed by the Council of State for his "personal satisfaction" and not because the recurrent game company had subjected such a question. But to an opinion, even if not requested, of the Council of State "how do you not take note of it"? But the Council of State insists on its beliefs and externalizations (although, it is still reiterated, not expressly requested) and adds, compared to the substantial indifference of the relocation of the game rooms, that "problematic and pathological players are much more inclined to move towards new sites "by implementing with this statement the assumption of a policy certainly based on the" ghettoization of demand and the game offer "which would not only damage the entrepreneurs, but would direct them towards a perhaps more profitable economic activity, but based on the Selection of a "problematic" clientele and therefore inclined to move towards the most interesting sites.

And at this point as. I can only underline what all this has to do with a correct approach to the problem of gambling disorder: certainly it is not given to understand this type of attitude. Perhaps, common sense would suggest that once the Council of State has come to decide the substantial indifference of the relocation of the game rooms and, therefore, to recognize the ineffectiveness of the distanziometer tool, the reduction of the offer is concretized by means of mechanisms that, without intervening drasticly on the economic activity of gaming companies operating in a sector that must be absolutely regulated, must keep in mind the interests that gravitate around this playful world also made of sport betsnull But mechanisms that act both on the location of the exercises, but above all on the technology to get to offer a product that, mainly, must bring the game back to its "roots", those of entertainment. But it seems that neither justice nor politics are ready to take this step, or that they have at least the desire to take a path that satisfies everyone, while operators are absolutely ready for changes (positive though).

Publication date: April 17, 2019 at 12:00

casino	Review	Visit
	888 casino 20 $ free + up to $ 500	Visit
	Snai Casino 10 $ Free + 1000 $	Visit
	Betway Casino 5 $ Free + 300 $	Visit
	LeoVegas Casino 250 Giri + 1000$	Visit
	Digital game casino 370 Giri + 500$	Visit
	Eurobet Casino 30 Giri + 1005$	Visit
	Bwin Casino 50 Giri + 200$	Visit
	Starcare 50 Giri + 200$	Visit
	BIG Casino 55 $ FREE + 300 $	Visit
	william hill casino 200 Giri + 1000$	Visit
	NetBet Casino 10 $ Free + 1000 $	Visit
	Pokerstars Casino 500 Giri + 2500$	Visit
	Betflag Casino 1000 $ free + 1000 $	Visit
	Casino.com 10 $ FREE + 500 $	Visit
	Unibet casino 100% up to $ 300	Visit
	Want to win 100% up to $ 1000	Visit
The game is forbidden to minors under 18 and can cause pathological addiction Play responsibly