Order No. 10505 of 2024: Approved Speed Cameras but Not Certified, Illegitimacy of the Assessment

The recent Order No. 10505 of April 18, 2024, provides an important reflection on the methods of assessing violations of the highway code, particularly regarding the use of speed camera devices. The Court clarified that the approval of a speed camera does not equate to its certification, affirming the illegitimacy of speed assessments carried out with non-certified instruments. This ruling is situated within a specific regulatory context, where the protection of motorists' rights must also be ensured through adequate verification of detection devices.

The Meaning of the Ruling

The Court emphasized that, according to Article 142, paragraph 6, of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 1992, the assessment of violations for exceeding speed limits must occur using equipment that is not only approved but also duly certified. The difference between approval and certification is fundamental: the former is a preliminary verification, while the latter is a process that ensures the device meets specific technical and safety standards.

SPEED Violations of the Highway Code - Article 142, paragraph 6, of the Highway Code - Assessment of vehicle speed using a previously approved but not certified speed camera - Equivalence of prior approval to certification - Exclusion - Foundation. Regarding violations of the highway code for exceeding speed limits, the assessment carried out with an approved but not duly certified speed camera is illegitimate, as the prior approval of the electronic speed detection instrument cannot be considered equivalent, on a legal level, to the ministerial certification prescribed by Article 142, paragraph 6, of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 1992, as these processes have different characteristics, nature, and purposes according to the cited provision and Article 192 of the related implementing regulation (Decree of the President of the Republic No. 495 of 1992).

Practical Implications of the Decision

This ruling has several practical implications for motorists and the competent authorities. Among the most relevant are:

  • The necessity for a rigorous verification of the speed cameras used for assessing violations.
  • The possibility to contest fines received through non-certified speed cameras.
  • The strengthening of the protection of motorists' rights regarding potentially illegitimate penalties.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 10505 of 2024 represents an important step in protecting the rights of motorists, clarifying the distinction between approval and certification of speed cameras. It is essential that the competent authorities ensure full compliance of detection instruments with current regulations to avoid unjust penalties and protect the right to defense of road users.

Bianucci Law Firm