Illegal Parking Attendant: The Court of Cassation (Judgment no. 24285/2025) Clarifies the Constituent Elements of the Offence

The phenomenon of illegal parking attendants has been a blight on our cities for years, causing inconvenience, insecurity, and a clear violation of legality and urban decorum. Often, the difficulty in prosecuting such conduct lies in identifying the elements that constitute the offence. The Court of Cassation, with Judgment no. 24285 of 2025, filed on 01/07/2025, intervenes to clarify a crucial aspect, reiterating a fundamental principle regarding the contravention of the abusive exercise of the parking attendant activity, pursuant to art. 7, paragraph 15-bis, of Legislative Decree no. 285 of 1992 (the Highway Code).

The Case of G. V. and the Cassation Court's Position

The judicial proceedings involved the defendant G. V., whose case was examined by the Court of Appeal of Palermo, which had declared the appeal inadmissible. The central issue, on which the Supreme Court ruled, concerned whether or not the illegal parking attendant had to receive a sum of money or other benefit to constitute the offence. The legal debate has often revolved around this element, considered by some to be indispensable for proving the illicit conduct.

With Judgment no. 24285/2025, the Fourth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. D. S. and with Dr. L. D. as rapporteur and author, provided a clear and unambiguous interpretation, strengthening the tools to combat this phenomenon. The Attorney General, Dr. E. A., had expressed a conforming opinion.

For the purposes of constituting the contravention of the abusive exercise of the parking attendant activity referred to in art. 7, paragraph 15-bis, of Legislative Decree of 30 April 1992, no. 285, it is sufficient that the perpetrator, having already been sanctioned administratively with a final measure, is again caught in the act of exercising the activity, lacking the necessary authorization. The receipt of a sum of money or other benefit, as consideration for the service rendered, is not relevant as a constituent element of the offence.

Commentary on the Ruling: The Essence of the Illegal Parking Attendant Offence

The ruling of the Court of Cassation is of fundamental importance because it clarifies that the receipt of money or any other benefit is not an essential requirement for the offence to be constituted. Even if the individual does not explicitly ask for money or does not receive it at the time of intervention by the authorities, their conduct can still be considered an offence.

The crucial elements, as highlighted by the Court, are two:

• that the individual has already been administratively sanctioned with a final measure for the same activity;
• that they are again caught in the act of exercising the activity of a parking attendant, without the necessary authorization.

This interpretation emphasizes the nature of the offence as one of "repeated commission," which transitions from an administrative violation to a criminal offence in cases of recidivism. The rationale is clear: it is not so much the immediate economic profit that is criminally sanctioned, but the repetition of conduct that disturbs public order, unlawfully occupies public spaces, and often generates a sense of intimidation. The absence of authorization is the core, while the receipt of money is a mere consequence, not a prerequisite.

The Regulatory Framework and Practical Implications

Article 7, paragraph 15-bis, of the Highway Code (Legislative Decree no. 285/1992) establishes administrative sanctions for those who carry out the activity of a parking attendant without authorization. In case of repetition of violations, the penalty of arrest and a fine applies. This progression from administrative to criminal sanctions in cases of recidivism demonstrates the legislator's intention to more firmly repress persistent conduct.

This judgment has significant practical implications. For law enforcement agencies, it means greater ease in prosecuting the offence, as they do not necessarily have to wait for or prove the exchange of money. It will be sufficient to document administrative recidivism and the new exercise of the unauthorized activity. This should make enforcement action more effective and deter illegal parking attendants.

For citizens, the ruling represents a positive signal. The interpretive clarity contributes to strengthening the perception of legality and protecting those in situations of distress. Knowing that illegality is pursued with greater rigor, regardless of the financial transaction, can help restore a sense of security in public spaces.

Conclusions: A Step Forward Against Illegality

Judgment no. 24285 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation marks a firm point in the interpretation of the regulations on illegal parking attendants. By reiterating that the receipt of money is not a constituent element of the offence, the Supreme Court has provided a sharper tool for the authorities, focusing attention on the repetition of unauthorized conduct. This ruling is an important step forward in the fight against a phenomenon that negatively impacts the quality of urban life and the perception of safety, reaffirming the principles of legality and citizens' right to freely and safely enjoy public spaces.