the case of the municipality of Treviso

With ordinance no. 10505 of 2024, the Court of Cassation dealt with a case relating to the Municipality of Treviso, involved in a controversy regarding the legitimacy of the speed cameras used to detect speed violations. The Court reaffirmed the importance of the approval of the devices as a necessary standard to guarantee the validity of the assessments.

Court of Cassation-Section. II Civ. ord. n. 10505 dated 18-04-2024

The question

The Municipality of Treviso had lodged an appeal against a sentence of the Justice of the Peace of the local Court which had upheld the opposition of a person regarding a local police investigation report. The report concerned a speed limit violation on a ring road. The Court of Treviso rejected the appeal, confirming the first instance decision, since the equipment used for the assessment had not been previously approved according to the law. The Municipality then lodged a cassation appeal against this decision.

The grounds of appeal

The Municipality of Treviso has filed an appeal in cassation denouncing the violation of various rules of the Highway Code including art. 142 and 45, sixth paragraph, as well as relevant legislative and ministerial provisions. The appellant Municipality contested the contested ruling, arguing that there is no substantial difference between the approval and approval of the equipment used to ascertain speed violations.
In particular, the Municipality argued that the law does not provide a clear indication of what constitutes approval, and that therefore this concept must be interpreted by referring to other regulatory provisions. Therefore, the Municipality considered that the equipment used to ascertain the speed violation, although not approved, has in any case followed a regular approval process and is therefore legitimate for the purposes of ascertaining the violation itself.

The Court’s arguments

The judges of legitimacy considered the plea presented by the Municipality of Treviso to be unfounded, declaring the appeal unfounded. In the first place, the Court held that the approval of the speed camera device cannot be considered equivalent to the approval required by law. They highlighted that the art. 142, paragraph 6, of the Highway Code explicitly mentions the approval of the equipment as a fundamental requirement, while the regulation clarifies that the approval is only a first step, prior to the actual approval. Therefore, according to the judges, the approval cannot be considered sufficient to guarantee the validity of the assessment of speed violations.
Furthermore, the seventh paragraph requires that the number and date of the ministerial decree be indicated on each element conforming to the type-approved or approved prototype, together with the name of the manufacturer.

Difference between approval and approval

The judges found valid the distinction made by the contested sentence between the two approval and homologation procedures. This distinction is based on the fact that approval allows the mass production of a device tested in the laboratory, while approval does not require comparison of the prototype with specific requirements of the regulation. The approval, therefore, has both an administrative and technical nature, and aims to guarantee the perfect functionality and precision of the electronic instrument used to ascertain speed violations.
Recently, legitimate jurisprudence has reiterated that, in the event of disputes regarding the validity of the device used to measure speed, the judge must verify whether the necessary checks have been carried out.
This verification must be based on the approval and conformity certifications of the appliance, and cannot be demonstrated through other means such as the assessment report. The ministerial circulars cited by the appellant Municipality, which seem to suggest an equivalence between approval and homologation, cannot, in the opinion of the judges, subvert the interpretation of the rules of the Highway Code.

Conclusions

In conclusion, article 142, paragraph 6, of the CdS must be interpreted together with article 45, paragraph 6, which clearly distinguishes the approval and approval of devices for ascertaining violations. Some of these devices must necessarily be approved, while for others approval is sufficient. However, approval alone is not enough to make speed detection using speed cameras legitimate.

Recommended volume