*by Fulvio Sarzana di S.Ippolito, Lawyer, Sarzana and Partners Law Firm. Sarzana Law Firm and Associates
A platform fined for secondary ticketing requests to see the internal memo and minutes with which the Authority extended the proceedings. Agcom opposes its own regulations. For judges, the right to defend oneself comes first.
In summary. Regarding access to AGCOM documents, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR) ruled that the right to self-defense prevails over the Authority's regulations: those sanctioned can view internal office memos and Council minutes pertaining to their case. The order was published on September 21, 2026.
There is a rule that Agcom continues to defend in court and that judges continue to set aside: the one that allows the Authority to keep for itself the internal notes of its offices and the minutes of the Council meetings.
The last time it happened was with an order from the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR) published on September 21st.
The judges ordered Agcom to deliver to Ticketoo, within 30 days, a note from its offices and the minutes of three Board meetings, in the parts pertaining to the company. The actual case, the one against the fine, has yet to be decided.
The 90,000 euro fine
Ticketoo is a Roman platform where private individuals resell concert tickets. In February, Agcom fined it €90,000, applying the law that reserves ticket sales to official circuits and their authorized resellers.
The calculation is simple: €5,000, the minimum required, for each of the 18 contested concerts. And there's a detail the resolution itself doesn't hide: the tickets were being resold at or below the cover price. The report that triggered it all came from TicketOne.
Whether the ban also applies to those who earn nothing on the ticket will be decided by the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) when it decides on the merits. For now, the judges have dealt with other matters, and the issue is of interest to anyone dealing with an independent authority. Regarding secondary ticketing, see also another proceeding, in which the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR) has a €4 million Agcom fine suspended.
Why those documents in particular?
Just line up the dates. The dispute arrives in May 2025. In September, the proceedings are suspended for further investigation. In November, the Authority's Board grants 60 more days, and in January, another 30. The fine arrives at the end of February.
The internal memo that Agcom refused to release is the one in which the offices request the Council for the first extension. The November and January minutes are the meetings in which the extensions are granted. The February minutes are the meeting in which the sanction is decided.
The defense wants to understand, essentially, why the proceedings lasted as long as they did. Anyone who read my July piece on the Privacy Guarantor and the sanctions that never expire (here) will recognize the issue. When an authority takes more time, those being sanctioned have every interest in reading the reasons.
Access to AGCOM documents: the Authority's two defenses
The Authority invoked its own regulations regarding the memo, which exclude access to notes, drafts, and proposals from its offices. For Agcom, it was an internal working document with no impact on the proceedings.
He argued two things about the transcripts. First, Ticketoo had never specifically requested them. Second, even if he had requested them, he would have only been able to see the findings of the commissioner in charge of the case, not the rest of the discussion.
What did the TAR respond?
The starting point is almost ironic. The Agcom regulation itself contains a sentence copied from Administrative Procedure LawAccess must be guaranteed when the documents are needed for defense. The Authority has written down in black and white the principle that is now being challenged.
On this note, the TAR follows the Council of State: even an internal document is a document, and can only be denied if it contains truly confidential information or is still a draft. A formal request for an extension sent to the Council is not a draft.
Regarding the minutes, the judges also cite the 2023 RAI affair: anyone receiving a fine has the right to know how the administration arrived at it, including the Council's discussions. And they note, almost in passing, that Agcom didn't even argue that the minutes contained confidential information or the commissioners' personal opinions, which are the only grounds for denying them under the regulations.
As for the fact that the minutes weren't mentioned, the answer is common sense. Ticketoo had requested "all the records and documents" in the file: the minutes are included. A company isn't required to know which documents each Authority office holds.
What remains
Those in this profession know that the file handed over by the authorities is often a sanitized file. Office notes and minutes are missing, and these are precisely the documents that reveal how a decision was made. The ordinance on access to AGCOM documents reminds us that it's best to request everything, including internal documents, and to ask again after the sanction has been issued.
It remains unclear why Agcom continues to defend a rule that the Council of State has already scaled back several times. The impression is that Council meetings are considered a closed room. Judges have been responding for years that they are not.
In 30 days, Ticketoo will publish the reasons for the November and January extensions.
If the arguments prove to be weak, the €90,000 fine could be dropped due to a question of timing, even before the merits of secondary ticketing.
Frequently asked questions about access to Agcom documents
Yes, when the documents are needed for defense: the right of defense prevails over access to Agcom documents. The Lazio Regional Administrative Court, with an order published on September 21, 2026, ordered Agcom to deliver to Ticketoo a note from its offices and the minutes of three Board meetings, in the parts pertaining to the company.
Agcom fined her €90,000 in February: €5,000, the minimum fine, for each of the 18 contested concerts for secondary ticketing. The Regional Administrative Court (TAR) has yet to rule on the merits of the fine.
To understand why the proceedings took so long, let's look at the details. The dispute was filed in May 2025, the Council granted an additional 60 days in November and another 30 in January, and the fine arrived at the end of February.
Only if the note contains truly confidential information or is still a draft. The TAR follows the Council of State and notes that a formal request for an extension sent to the Council is not a draft.
Simply request all the records and documents in the file. Ticketoo had done this, and the minutes are included: a company isn't required to know which documents each Authority office holds.
Agcom has 30 days to submit the documents. If the reasons for the extensions prove to be weak, the €90,000 fine could be dropped due to timing issues, even before the merits of secondary ticketing.
An earlier version of this article was published on September 22, 2026, on Fulvio Sarzana's blog on Il Sole 24 Ore.
English 
Italian 