Speed ​​cameras, fines that can be challenged if the device is not approved

(ANSA) – ROME, APRIL 22 – Fines for excessive speeding with speed cameras that do not contain references to both the approval and the ministerial approval can be challenged for cancellation. This principle was established with sentence 10505 by the Court of Cassation which, for the first time, clarified the distinction between the two administrative procedures, underlining how both are indispensable for the legal use of speed detectors. “The stoats – explain the experts of the periodical All-In Giuridica – have explained how on every speed camera conforming to the type-approved or approved prototype the number and date of the ministerial decree of type-approval and approval and the name of the manufacturer must be reported. , in fact, of procedures having different characteristics, nature and purposes, since the first authorizes the serial reproduction of a device tested in the laboratory, with attribution of competence to the Ministry for Economic Development, while the approval does not require the comparison of the prototype with characteristics deemed fundamental or with particular requirements foreseen by the regulation”. For thousands of motorists, this ruling opens the way to the possibility of success in appealing against a fine received for exceeding the permitted speed, with relief for wallets and points on the licence. This, however, provided that the detector device does not have approval or homologation or both, “verification – underline the jurists of the Seac group – which can only be done with a procedure for accessing documents”. In the case in question, a motorist was caught by Autoveox fixed Red&Speed-Evo-L2 proceeding on a ring road in Northern Italy at 97 km/h instead of the prescribed 90 km/h. Following the investigations that emerged during the judicial proceedings, the equipment was found to be approved but not approved, a fact which led to the acceptance of the appeal for annulment brought by the motorist, in which the equivalence between approval and approval was contested. With this ruling, the Court of Cassation therefore overturns the interpretation of the Highway Code set out by the Ministry of Transport with the note of 31 May, (taken from circular no. 8176/2020 of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport) according to which the terms “approval” and “homologation” could be characterized as synonyms or equivalent. Codacons intervenes to dampen some enthusiasm: “The sentence is causing great confusion and fuels false hopes about possible mass cancellations of sanctions: for fines already paid or those for which the terms have expired – the association claims – it is not possible to propose appeal” (ANSA).