No urban Daspo for the illegal parking attendant
In the absence of public order and safety reasons, the conduct should only be punished with the administrative penalty laid down in the Road Traffic Act
2' min read
Key points
2' min read
Illegal parkers cannot be hit by the urban ban, in the absence of reasons of public order, safety, hygiene or justice. He is therefore not liable for the offence provided for in Article 650 of the Criminal Code, on non-compliance with the measures of the authorities, but must be punished with the ad hoc administrative sanction indicated by the Road Code. The Court of Cassation, with sentence 40122, therefore upheld the appeal of the unauthorised parking attendant for having violated the order to stay out of a square, which the Questore had indicated as off limits for him. An offence for which the Court of Appeal had confirmed the two-month arrest sentence pronounced at first instance by the Court.
The risk to public safety
.For the Supreme Court, a decision that cannot be shared. The legitimacy judges clarify, in fact, which are the hypotheses in which the violation of the so-called Urban Daspo, introduced in Italy with the Legislative Decree 14/2017, as a "measure to protect the decorum of particular places, can be configured. A rule that has the declared aim of guaranteeing the safety of cities. Starting from the very rationale of the law, the Supreme Court emphasises that it is necessary for security to be put at risk by the actions, which end up in the quaestor's sights. And this is not the case of the illegal parking attendant.
The judge's review
.Failure to comply with the authority's prohibitions must, in fact, relate to: "A specific order, issued to a specific person on the occasion of events and circumstances such as to lead one to believe that that very person will engage in a certain conduct, or abstain from a certain conduct imposed for reasons of security or public order or hygiene or justice". Another circumstance that legitimises the measure is whether it 'is adopted in relation to situations not prefigured by any specific regulatory provision entailing a specific and autonomous sanction'. The judge is therefore required to verify the substantive legality of the order, which is presumed to have been violated from the point of view of three traditional profiles: violation of the law, excess of power or incompetence. If the prerequisite for imposing the Daspo is missing, the act, as in the case examined, is not legitimate.
