Highway Code

Unapproved speed cameras: the Ministry’s amnesty does not settle the appeals

The ministerial decree setting out the requirements for type-approval ‘promotes in practice’ the meters approved since 2017, but leaves room for doubt

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

Pending the publication in the Official Gazette of the ministerial decree of 8 June on the type-approval of speed cameras, one wonders whether it will actually serve to make legally usable those devices that were simply approved under the immediately preceding legislation (Ministerial Decree No. 282 of 13 June 2017). For now, the only thing that is certain is that the new Ministerial Decree will apply only to offences detected from the date it comes into force, which Article 7 of the text sets as the day following its publication.

The issue

To date, no speed detection devices have been type-approved in Italia: the Ministry of Infrastructure has only granted approvals. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling No. 10505 of 18 April 2024 established clearly and precisely that the Highway Code requires type-approval, which is a more complex process than mere authorisation. And subsequent rulings by the Court, with rare exceptions, have shown that this is now a well-established line of case law, followed even by trial judges. Consequently, an appeal based on the lack of type-approval now has a very high probability of being upheld at first instance.

Loading...

The ‘amnesty’

The new Ministerial Decree sets out the administrative procedure leading to type-approval, more than 33 years after the Code came into force, whilst also setting out the technical requirements that the devices must meet. Article 6 of the decree introduces a fast-track procedure for those devices already in use – and obviously lacking type-approval – that meet certain requirements: those laid down by the Ministerial Decree of 2017. These devices are deemed to be directly type-approved.

Their names, as set out in the Ministerial Decree itself, are:

AUTOVELOX 106, approved by Executive Decree No. 476 of 9 December 2025,

VRS-EVO-T12-5-R, approved by Executive Decree No. 342 of 2 October 2025,

VELOCAR RED&SPEED EVO-R, approved by Executive Decree No. 342 of 2 October 20253

CELERITAS MSE 2021 approved by Executive Decree No. 401 of 19 August 2024

TUTOR 3.0 approved by Executive Decree No. 305 of 20 June 2024

VERGILIUS PLUS approved by Executive Decree No. 149 of 27 March 2024

CELERITAS MVD 2022 approved by Executive Decree No. 290 of 25 July 2023

VRS EVO 2 approved by Executive Decree No. 271 of 11 July 2023

T-EXSPEED approved by Executive Decree No. 236 of 5 June 2023

K53800_SPEED, approved by Executive Decree No. 549 of 21 December 2021

TCS – Traffic Control System, approved by Executive Decree No. 378 of 9 September 2021

Autosc@n Speed approved by Executive Decree No. 356 of 18 August 2021

CELERITAS MVD 2020 approved by Executive Decree No. 349 of 16 August 2021

AGUIA Red & Speed approved by Executive Decree No. 48 of 1 March 2021

VELOCAR RED&SPEED EVO M, approved by Executive Decree No. 5240 of 31 August 2017.

So, there are many models that qualify for the amnesty – certainly a significant proportion of the 4,055 devices currently in use in Italia.

The doubts

Now, one might well ask whether a ministerial decree can go so far as to declare that a procedure has taken place when, in fact, it never did. Furthermore, it may be worth recalling that both the Supreme Court and the lower courts have strongly rejected arguments suggesting a substantial overlap between the approval and certification procedures. These arguments, having been rejected in court, are now being presented in the guise of regulations.

It is, to say the least, doubtful whether our legal system permits the equating of different administrative procedures (approval and type-approval) by means of a regulatory act. It is therefore rather difficult not to foresee further legal battles, the outcome of which is hard to predict. Added to these is the dispute that has been ongoing for years regarding ownership of the Tutor software: in recent weeks, the entrepreneur Alessandro Patanè has served a formal notice on the Ministry of Infrastructure seeking, by way of self-defence, to have the new Ministerial Decree (which also grants type-approval to the Tutor) annulled or, at the very least, to have its effect suspended.

Added to these battles is the one that has been ongoing for years regarding ownership of the Tutor software: in recent weeks, the entrepreneur Alessandro Patanè has served a formal notice on the Ministry of Infrastructure, demanding that it revoke the new Ministerial Decree (which also approves the Tutor system) as a matter of self-protection, or at least suspend its effect.

One must also ask what impact the decree will have on ongoing proceedings and how it will affect notices of offence that have already been served or, in any case, offences detected before the Ministerial Decree came into force. Retroactive effect in this case would have a direct impact on the law governing penalties and, at least in theory, this is not permitted under the general principles governing the entire body of penal law. Therefore, the amnesty provided for in the Ministerial Decree should not apply to offences detected before the new Ministerial Decree came into force and, a fortiori, to disputes already underway.

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti