Approved is not the same as approved. This is the crucial point of the ruling of the Court of Cassation regarding a fine for speeding detected by a speed camera on the Treviso ring road which could open the doors to hundreds of appeals from the sanctioned citizens. The case of the Treviso lawyer who won the appeal to the Supreme Court presented by the municipality of Treviso, in fact, could be similar to many others in the country. The man had been fined because he was traveling at 97 kilometers per hour on a stretch of road where the limit is 90. But the detection had been carried out by an “approved” but not “approved” device, just as thousands of other devices are not of speed cameras on the roads of the Peninsula. The court had deemed the violation null and void at first instance and the Supreme Court confirmed that the decision taken complies with the rules and methods described in the highway code.
The difference between authorization and approval of speed cameras
Although in some ministry circulars the terms approval and approval have been used almost interchangeably and since 2020 the ministry has stopped approving detectors, in the highway code they refer to two separate and distinct parts. Homologation, as stated in the highway code, entails verifying that the mandatory characteristics imposed on the machinery are respected. The approval instead concerns characteristics not specified in the code, on which the ministry expresses its opinion, explains the specialized portal Ricorsi.net. But the ministry was unclear and the Municipalities followed opaque indications, installing speed cameras that had never been tested before on compliance with the mandatory characteristics. The risk is that following the sentence thousands of citizens will want to emulate the Treviso lawyer, with results that could be problematic for the coffers of the Municipalities.
Read also:
Tags: Approved approved Supreme Court ruling disqualifies hundreds speed cameras municipalities tremble
){kind=link}