Dear readers, this week I want to talk to you about a truly particular and interesting topic that is causing a lot of discussion, not without misunderstandings and bad interpretations that I believe should be corrected.
It will have happened to everyone at least once in their life to have an unpleasant letter delivered to their home after having been “caught” by a Speed Cameras to have exceeded the speed limit expected.
In most cases, the unfortunate person will have considered not paying the fine, considering it unfair, or even challenging the fine to ask for it to be cancelled.
This, in fact, is what a motorist from the Treviso area did who, after receiving a fine for exceeding the current speed limit by a few km/h, decided to appeal the sanction considering it irregular as it is imposed by a speed camera that is not approved but only authorized.
The story reached the end Court of Cassation who, with a ruling destined to make history, ruled in favor of the appellant, establishing that the sanction was to be considered absolutely irregular, coming from a speed detection system that was only authorized and not even approved.
The news of this pronouncement started a frenzy rush to appeal: hundreds of Road users have in fact decided to challenge the reports received, confident that they will be able to have them canceled and not have to pay anything.
But is it really like that? Let’s clarify.
First of all, it is important to clarify the substantial difference between authorization and approval.
While theauthorization it concerns essentially the installation of the speed cameraL’approval it’s a certification which concerns the appliance’s compliance with the standards required for its correct functioning.
Having said this, in order for the sanction to be considered duly imposed, it is necessary that the instrumentation has both certifications.
This poses quite a few problems when you consider that the vast majority of speed detection systems present in Italy have been authorized but not approvedwith the consequence that – lacking one of the necessary requirements for the regularity of the sanctions – the resulting fines could well be annulled upon appeal by the sanctioned person and that provided that the deadline for filing an appeal has not passed And provided that the fine has not already been paid.
It is essential, therefore read the complaint report carefully or file an application for access to documents of the Municipality in which the device is installed, so as to check whether the appliance has both certifications or not: if the indication of the number and date of the approval decree is missing, and provided that the relevant requirements are respected, it will be possible to appeal, making sure to respect the deadlines established by law.
WHAT DO I THINK?
I believe that the ruling of the Supreme Court has created an important precedent, certainly destined to cause much discussion.
Nonetheless, I must remember that, as in any other area of life, before acting it is important not to indulge in generalizations but to carefully study the individual concrete case in order to verify the existence of all the necessary requirements for a correct and effective appeal.
This is a legal information and dissemination column which has the sole purpose of wanting to contribute at a social level to the knowledge of one’s rights as it is my belief that only in this way is it possible to effectively protect them from a legal point of view.
If you have any questions or want to suggest a topic for me to talk about, you can do so by writing to me at the e-mail address [email protected] or by filling out the form you find on the site www.studiolegalefois.com.
Lawyer Fulvia Fois
