The Court of Cassation affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal of L’Aquila condemning the owner of a management company to pay a fine of 28,000 euros, accusing the company of using slot machines without the second protective cover of the inner card.
The facts date back to 2018 when the machines were found without the casing protecting the game card during inspection. The penalty, with confiscation of the devices, was imposed by the Customs and Monopolies Agency.
The second civil section of the cassation rejected a series of grounds for appeal by the appellant company, indicating that the decisions of the judges extended at the bottom of the appeals at both levels of the lawsuit, with an order to deposit the lawsuit papers. Punishment action, not properly notified; The objection to attachment was dismissed after the submission of the defense documents referred, and therefore all actions, including forfeiture, became ineffective because they were not issued within two months from the day the report was received and within six months. The most famous Nuba at the moment
The infraction did not provide for the installation of a double casing for the game card; The new technical specifications of the internal card would not have been approved by administrative decree
to attract the attention of the interested party; The arbitral tribunal was composed of judges other than those who participated in the discussion session.
“With regard to the alleged violation of the principle of legality and the plea of non-guilt due to failure to notify the administrative judgment which
Technical specifications for gaming cards, which make installing a double shell mandatory, both problems seem unacceptable.
The circumstance in which the machine was produced and installed years before the adoption of supervisory technical standards and adjustment requirements is a circumstance that is generally mentioned only in the appeal, without any connection to the disputes examined in trial on the merits and without determining whether such profiles are the subject of objection and judgment Subsequent appeal, as the relevant opponent was now barred in cassation. It must be re-emphasized that if cassation appeal questions are raised that are not mentioned in the contested sentence, it is the responsibility of the appellant, in order to avoid a judgment of inadmissibility on account of the freshness of the complaint, not only attaching the fact that they have withheld before the trial judge, but also, In accordance with the principle of specificity of cause, to indicate which act of the previous ruling did so, in order to allow the company to verify the validity of this assertion “by virtue of deed” before examining the feasibility of the above question (Rescission 2694/2018, Rescission 15430/2018, Rescission 23675/2013) .
Nor do they indicate that – in accordance with the teachings of this Court (see Cass. 4962/2020; Cass. 17403/2008) – a violation of the principle of legality in the matter of administrative sanctions can be detected ex officio,
Given that this power of disclosure may be exercised in cassation provided that the factual circumstances supporting his conclusion were ritually gained at trial and are actual.
It does not matter, therefore, to prove whether the firm, having ignored the provisions of supervision, made a justifiable error:
Assessment of the subjective component of the violation includes factual features, the assessment of which is the competence of the trial judge to whom the question is submitted on the spot (Cass. 23019/2009).
For the same reasons, the deduction for the fact that the administration manager’s provision containing the new prescriptions was not communicated to him or the company
He had the opportunity to acquire knowledge, a matter which is not mentioned in the sentence.”
“Bacon trailblazer. Certified coffee maven. Zombie lover. Tv specialist. Freelance communicator.”