Gambling: it takes transparent rules for everyone

Who knows how and why the "poor" judges of the civil or Tar courts are forced sometimes to climb the glass to get to the final decision on some appeals set by the operators of the game to see the right (or not) acclaimed in relation to their activities accepted commercial. That many rules are in fact controversial, overlap and that are not at all transparent and subject to a single and only interpretation and that do not lend their side to "alternative interpretative ideas" continues to be recurring on game, American mess Included, and this certainly is not good for its world and its operators who, in turn, must chase the strangest and most abstruse rules that can hinder their commercial path. Precisely for this reason we "like" to tell a pseudo-Disventura that happened to an operator of Sassari in relation to his activity: and here's what happened, premising, which is extremely important, that this operator directly does not deal with the game.

Has only installed an internet station in its exercise (the so -called totem) equipped with access to banknotes to be able to mainly call telephone top -ups, also to navigate freely on the net, but not having installed any commercial relationship with any game operator and wagernull But we want to return to Totem, the true protagonist of the judicial dispute, on whose screen from a check carried out by the ADM staff, the presence as well as several telephone operators also the one on the browser of connections to various gaming sites, such as Poker Stars, Bet, appeared as well as several telephone operators. Flag, Stanleybet and Bwin. And precisely because of this situation, the contestation by the ADM operators of the violation of the Balduzzi decree "of good memory" with a penalty of 20 thousand $ that the Sardinian entrepreneur then contested at the Sassari Civil Court of Sassari was started null The internet station, in reality, really had many connections to gaming and betting sites, but they were free and personal connections. All allowed "on the basis of the freedom of navigation and self -determination of each individual".

The specific rule that regulates the matter of the game is not that of the clearest and easiest and easier in all transparency: it remains a somewhat controversial matter as already mentioned, but what is essential is to demonstrate that we speak of a position aimed exclusively at activities of intermediation also with the presence of an agreement with any game operator and pokernull Which does not exist between the Sassarese operator and any operator and that ADM obviously could not demonstrate: thus the judge of the Sassari court last September 13, 2021 issued the sentence by deciding that the installation of a computer cannot be considered prohibited "Regardless". With this ruling, therefore, the Judge Odito considered the interpretation of the exercise to be corrected in opposing the payment of the penalty: if he had decided on the impossibility of freely installing Internet stations to avoid possible connections with gambling sites, he would have Meaning, without a doubt, to sacrifice too much the freedom of navigation of each individual, also burning himself from the recent community rules.

In addition, the judge had to keep in mind the privacy problems: in fact, it is absolutely not conceivable that the owner of an exercise can ingest on the will of his customers in relation to the sites they intend to visit. And so the judge also evaluated this delicate topic and took it into consideration by sharing the principle and issuing a sentence objected to the time, in line with the EU principles and based on a correct interpretation of the performance of the related facts with the decree Balduzzi. In the so much experience that in recent years have been acquired in the dynamics of the world of games have met many sentences, mainly issued by the various TAR, who found themselves suffered by the appeals of the operators of the game and the bingo onlinenull Entrepreneurs who had to compare with unclear regulations, or "differently understandable", and it can be said that often the "reason" was decreed in favor of the municipalities that applied these rules, sometimes decidedly "bislacche".

Only recently did we see some judge who began to express himself favorably to the operators of the playful world and still today this is experienced almost as an exception. Although it must certainly be said that many rules, especially those that refer to the notorious distancies (of each measure) applied in relation to the presence of "sensitive places", which also became a very long list that goes to understand too much extension, are truly unacceptable. But regardless of this, it can be said that recently the judges of the various TARs are "expanding their ideas and application of the game rules and Mobile application game", Perhaps evaluating them more carefully, managing more and more to finally protect the experts of the game, which was not previously taken into consideration before. And not that the judges pronounced "bad judgments", but they believed almost that it was "good and right" to give reason to the various municipal administrations who claimed to defend the territory and the same players.

The "presumed purpose" of local authorities was initially to contrast the game that too many salt proposed almost strongly and that they enticed to the game, above all the fragile and easily influenced people, sometimes overwhelming them in the vortex of the disorder from gamble. But over time, expert professionals on the subject, they managed to explain that neither the distanziometer, nor the less the hourly ignition bands of the appliances were a valid deterrent to contain the vice of the game. We only need a lot of information and culture of the sector and not prohibition in any form is represented: on the other hand the old prohibition that is used to seeing on TV or in the cinema well represents how negative it was then, and things have not changed today : It would be enough to reflect on the closure of the game activities during the pandemìa, in practice by forbidding the players to find the terrestrial game. And what happened? The choices turned to the online or, which is naturally worse, to the illegal game to which it did not seem true of appropriating those infinite spaces left free by public game.

Publication date: October 16, 2021 at 18:00

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