Highway Code

Speed camera decree, the uncertainty of deposited prototypes weighs on homologation

The latest ruling by the Supreme Court opens up a further question with respect to the lack of homologation in relation to speeding penalties

by Silvio Scotti

2 April 2025

3' min read

Key points

Approval, Approval and Appeals
The Criminal Question
Prototype Repository
Uncertainty

3' min read

The long-awaited 'speed camera decree' may not be enough to restore thelegality of speed checks even after the developments announced by the Ministry of Infrastructure (MIT). The Supreme Court of Cassation (sentence 10365/2025, filed on 14 March), this time in criminal proceedings, has confirmed the most recent jurisprudence of legitimacy, which has been joined by that of merit: the approval of the equipment, and not mere approval, is an essential element for correctly founding the sanctioning procedure. And between the lines of the ruling another issue peeps out: that of how the prototypes of the equipment to be type-approved/approved are filed with the MIT.

Approvals, Approvals and Appeals

Simplifying to the utmost, in the absence of homologation, the Supreme Court considers that even a proclaimed speeding excess cannot be punished. Could the devices simply be homologated, regularising the situation? It is not so easy: the Road Code came into force in 1993, but the homologation procedure is not yet in place.

Existing equipment is only approved. And the administrative procedures of authorisation and approval, although to a large extent overlapping, cannot be considered equivalent, according to the Supreme Court (Order 10505 of 18 April 2024, followed by several other rulings). Regardless of the actual unreliability or inaccuracy of the equipment.

Thus they could, as is in fact happening, be accepted on a purely formal and easily ascertainable issue.

The Criminal Question

The criminal judgement of 14 March confirmed theseizure of some equipment ordered last year by the Cosenza Public Prosecutor's Office and gave rise to unfounded interpretations. Let us try to clarify.

The investigation is for the offences of fraud in public procurement and swindling. From some reports it might have seemed that keeping the equipment in operation could constitute the crime of defrauding those who were fined, but in fact the matter concerns a detector that, according to reports, might not even be considered as approved.

Why? Basically, according to the prosecution, the device has technical characteristics that do not correspond to the approval issued. Thus, the judgement itself is far from enshrining any general principles.

The Prototype Depot

However, it is well known that the problem of non-conformity with approval has arisen several times in the past. Even when a device component (for example, the camera) was replaced by the manufacturer because it was no longer on the market. Or when it was seen that the prototype that was deposited with the MIT (as required by Article 192, paragraph 2 of the Regulations for the execution of the Highway Code) was missing even important parts at thesoftware level.

Over the decades, MIT has given itself a line on the procedures to be followed, but the Cosenza investigation shows that the judiciary does not always share it. Hence the risk of further criminal investigations, adding to the uncertainty of insiders and public administrators on the 'simple' question of homologation/approval.

L’incertezza

Thus the circular 0000995 of 23 January 2025, with which the Ministry of the Interior invited administrations to resist in court againstcitizens' appeals, with precise reasons, based essentially on the almost identical procedure between approval and approval, risks being in vain. Position that follows the already consolidated one of the MIT (circular 8176/2020), which already in the subject speaks of "substantial equivalence between approval and approval procedures"..

The MIT concluded that "the decrees approving the various traffic regulation and control systems and, in particular, the speed measurement systems, are technically valid and effective for the purposes of ascertaining the exceeding of the speed limit and contesting the relative infringement"..