When a technicality saves a speed camera fine in Cassation
The report stated that the device has type approval. This cannot be true, but a special procedure is needed to prove it before the courts
1' min read
1' min read
Same day of filing (26 May), same section (the Second Civil Section), two opposing verdicts onspeeding: in one the Supreme Court upheld the appeal, in the other it did not. Yet in both cases the appellants arguedabout the lack of type approval of the speed detector. The contradiction, however, is only apparent.
In fact, after the impactful Ordinance No. 10505/2024, the jurisprudence of legitimacy has established the principle that a report is legitimate if there is the actual approval of the measuring device. But to date, the measuring devices are merely approved: there is still no homologation procedure.
The two ordinances of 26 May (nos. 13996 and 13997/2025) diverge because in the case of 13997 the minutes attested the existence of the approval. This is, to say the least, incorrect, but legally the minutes have privileged faith and for this reason the procedure requires that the form of the claim for forgery be followed, aimed at contesting the veracity of the minutes. In the absence of such a specific procedure, the risk of having the exception contested, even if founded in substance, is very high.
