Responsibility of the Holder of a Public Security Authorization: The Cassation Court Order No. 14825 of 2025

The sector of activities subject to public security authorizations imposes stringent obligations on their holders, especially when operational management is delegated to employees or collaborators. The issue of responsibility in case of non-compliance is of paramount importance. The Court of Cassation, with Order No. 14825 of June 3, 2025, has provided a fundamental clarification, reiterating a key principle for all operators in the sector. Let's analyze the implications of this ruling.

The Duty of Supervision in Authorized Activities

Public security authorizations, governed by Royal Decree No. 773 of 1931 (TULPS), aim to protect public order and safety in specific areas, such as the trade of precious objects. These permits require the holder to scrupulously observe legal and police prescriptions. A frequent question is whether the holder can be considered exempt from responsibility if violations are committed by their employees. The Court of Cassation, with the order in question, has provided an unequivocal answer.

The Cassation Court's Ruling: Non-Derogable Responsibility

Order No. 14825/2025, in rejecting the appeal filed by G. against P., confirmed a consolidated principle. The ruling, which we report in full, clarifies the holder's position without reservation:

The holder of a public security authorization is not exempt from the obligation to supervise what happens in the office and to ensure compliance with all prescriptions imposed by the police authority or by law, even when availing themselves of appointees or employees, remaining personally responsible for the non-compliances materially committed by them. (Case concerning the obligation of the merchant to record transactions on used precious objects provided for by art. 128 of Royal Decree No. 773 of 1931, as amended by art. 10 of Law No. 246 of 2005).

This ruling reaffirms that the holder's responsibility is personal and objective, not transferable through the delegation of duties. The holder has the duty to ensure compliance with rules and prescriptions within their activity, exercising constant supervision. The specific case concerned the omission of recording transactions on used precious objects, a crucial obligation under Article 128 of the TULPS for the prevention of illicit activities. Responsibility falls on the holder, even if the non-compliance was materially committed by an employee, as they failed to ensure the correct application of procedures.

Practical Tips for Compliance

For holders of public security authorizations, adopting a proactive approach is essential to avoid sanctions. Here are some fundamental measures:

• Staff Training: Ensure all employees are fully aware of the specific regulatory obligations of the sector.
• Clear Operating Procedures: Implement detailed internal protocols for every activity subject to public security control.
• Effective Supervision: Exercise regular and documented oversight of collaborators' work.
• Regulatory Updates: Keep abreast of laws and regulations, including through legal consultation.

Conclusions: Professional Diligence as an Obligation

The Cassation Court Order No. 14825 of 2025 clearly reiterates the importance of professional diligence for holders of public security authorizations. Personal responsibility does not cease with the delegation of tasks but persists as an obligation to ensure full compliance with regulations. Investing in training, defining procedures, and effective supervision is not just good management practice but a legal imperative to prevent sanctions and ensure compliance. For a serene and compliant management of one's business, specialized legal advice is valuable support.