the Supreme Court makes Veneto tremble

A sentence with potentially sensational consequences, the one that comes from Cassation. A sentence that works tremble the Veneto: thousands of fines imposed thanks to speed cameras must be cancelled. The Supreme Court in fact upheld the opposition presented by a lawyer against a fine: the lawyer argued that for the fine to be valid, the velox had to be authorized and approved. And the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

The point is that many speed cameras in Veneto, and in particular in Treviso, are not approved. Therefore, based on this sentence, it is sufficient to contact the justice of the peace to obtain its annulment. But not only that: if the velox appears to be only authorized and not approvedthose who have already paid can appeal to get back what they have already paid.

In short, a possible blow for the region Luca Zaia. Consider that, according to 2022 data, out of a total of 2.7 billion fines paid in Italy, 51 million came from Veneto, and of these 51 million, 16 came from speed camera fines. Treviso alone every year he collects 4 million every year through veloxes. In short, the potential problem in economic terms for municipalities, particularly the smaller ones, is obvious.

The director of the local ANCI, Carlo Rapicavoliexplains to the Corriere del Veneto: “Since 2020 the ministry has only made authorisations, considering the two procedures equivalent for sanctioning purposes. The municipalities, legitimately, felt in order given the indication of the competent ministers. But the recent sentence contradicts the interpretation always supported by the ministry”, he concludes.

In detail, the Supreme Court ruling concerns the case of a lawyer who he was speeding at 97 km/h on a stretch of the ring road where the limit was 90 km/h. The Justice of the Peace and the ordinary Justice had accepted the lawyer’s appeal, at which point the Municipality appealed to the Supreme Court, losing. “The approval does not require the comparison of the prototype with characteristics considered fundamental or with particular requirements, while the approval authorizes the serial reproduction of a device tested in the laboratory”, wrote the judges of the Supreme Court in their reasons.