Highway Code

Drug driving, new offence at risk of unconstitutionality

The Pordenone gip takes the reform to the Consulta for the punishability of the mere presence of narcotics in the driver's system

by Editors

22 April 2025

2' min read

Key points

The new standard and the issue
The Ordinance

2' min read

The recent reform of the Highway Code (law 177/2024), in the part that punishes drivers who have taken drugs even if they are not in a state of psychophysical alteration while driving, ends up before the Constitutional Court. This was decided by the gip of the Court of Pordenone, Milena Granata, in an order filed on 8 April.

As far as we know, this is the first measure to officially challenge before the Constitutional Court the abolition of the 'under the influence' condition to constitute the offence of the driver under Article 187 of the Code. An abolition that had however immediately provoked criticism and alarm in both the political and scientific debate. Therefore, the Pordenone gip's order did not come as a surprise and it is to be expected that others will follow.

Codice della strada, nuove sanzioni per chi guida sotto l’effetto di alcol o droga

The new standard and the issue

The new version of Article 187 triggers the criminal and licence penalties provided for road traffic offences relating to drugs for the mere presence of such substances in the body of the driver. Irrespective of whether the person concerned can be found to be in an altered state, which required adetection that was not infrequently difficult or impossible to carry out with the means available to the police and the health system.

The most critical aspects of the reform concern those drivers who are not addicted to drugs, but simply are on medication containing narcotic or psychotropic substances.

L’ordinanza

The Pordenone gip considers thatthe new rule contravenes the principles enshrined in various articles of the Constitution:

- equality, reasonableness and proportionality (Article 3);

- taxability, determinacy and offensiveness (Article 25(2));

- re-educative purpose of the sentence (Article 27(3)).

In support of his arguments, the judge cites a previous ruling by the Constitutional Court (23/2015) and states that he does not consider a constitutionally oriented interpretation of the new rule to be feasible, as it does not appear possible to find a way that would 'undermine' the sharpness of its wording except by trespassing into a 'substantial abrogation of the reform', which would be up to the legislature and not the judiciary.