Future of floating casino in Buenos Aires in doubt
The Supreme Court of Justice unanimously revoked a precautionary measure that had allowed the Floating Casino in Puerto Madero to operate despite the expiration of its concession. As a result, the casino’s ability to continue operations is now uncertain.
The ruling impacts Casinos de Buenos Aires SA, the company responsible for operating the ‘Estrella de la Fortuna’ and ‘Princess’ vessels, whose original concession expired in 2019.
For now, the floating casino will remain in operation, as another precautionary measure has been in effect since 2021 and is irreversible due to the fact that the State never contested it.
However, the Supreme Court urged the Federal Administrative Litigation Chamber to send it the main file, in order to determine whether the gaming hall can continue operating in the City of Buenos Aires, where the local constitution prohibits the exploitation of gambling in private hands.
Judges Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, Ricardo Lorenzetti, and Manuel José García Mansilla criticized the previous judicial decision, arguing that the precautionary measure “hindered the administration from exercising its regulatory powers.” They also warned about the risk of “judges replacing the administration in the determination of public policies.”
The floating casino in Buenos Aires has a long and complex history. The first floating casino was granted a licence in 1999 to operate in Puerto Madero which is in one of the more affluent parts of the city. A second ship was joined to the first in 2004 and combined Estrella de la Fortuna and Buque Princess make up the Casino Buenos Aires.
In 2016, the national government transferred oversight of gambling to the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires establishing the Buenos Aires City Lottery which regulates gaming activities and has prohibited new private concessions while allowing existing ones to continue until their contracts expired.
Before their contract expired, Casinos de Buenos Aires S.A. filed a lawsuit to extend their operating period, claiming that state decisions had hurt their profitability. They requested a precautionary measure to keep their contract valid until a final ruling.
However the recent Supreme Court ruling asserts that the courts had extended an expired contract and that federal judges were overstepping their authority, which should belong to the City of Buenos Aires.
