Order No. 10505 of 2024: Speed Cameras Approved but Not Certified, Illegitimacy of the Assessment

The recent Order No. 10505 of April 18, 2024, offers an important reflection on the methods of assessing traffic code violations, particularly regarding the use of speed detection devices. The Court has clarified that the approval of a speed camera does not equate to its certification, affirming the illegitimacy of speed assessments carried out with uncertified instruments. This ruling is part of a very specific regulatory context, where the protection of motorists' rights must also be guaranteed through the adequate verification of detection devices.

The Meaning of the Ruling

The Court highlighted that, according to Article 142, paragraph 6, of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 1992, the assessment of violations for exceeding speed limits must be carried out using equipment that is not only approved but also duly certified. The difference between approval and certification is fundamental: the former is a preliminary check, while the latter is a process that guarantees the device meets specific technical and safety standards.

SPEED Traffic Code Violations - Article 142, paragraph 6, of the Highway Code - Assessment of vehicle speed using a speed camera previously approved but not certified - Equivalence of prior approval to certification - Exclusion - Rationale. In matters of traffic code violations for exceeding the speed limit, an assessment carried out with a speed camera that is approved but not duly certified is illegitimate, given that the prior approval of the electronic speed detection instrument cannot be considered legally equivalent to the ministerial certification prescribed by Article 142, paragraph 6, of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 1992. This is because, under the aforementioned provision and Article 192 of its implementing regulation (Presidential Decree No. 495 of 1992), these are procedures with different characteristics, nature, and purposes.

Practical Implications of the Decision

This order has several practical implications for motorists and competent authorities. Among the most relevant are:

• The need for rigorous verification of speed cameras used for assessing violations.
• The possibility of contesting fines received via uncertified speed cameras.
• Strengthening the protection of motorists' rights regarding potentially illegitimate sanctions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 10505 of 2024 represents an important step in protecting motorists' rights, clarifying the distinction between the approval and certification of speed cameras. It is crucial that competent authorities ensure the full compliance of detection instruments with current regulations, to avoid unjust sanctions and protect the right to defense of road users.