Order No. 21894 of 2024: Illegitimacy of Red Light Crossing Citation Without Approval

The recent Order No. 21894 of August 2, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents a significant intervention in road traffic and penalties. In particular, the ruling clarifies the legal limits in the use of automatic systems for detecting traffic code violations, with a specific focus on crossing intersections on a red light.

The Case Examined

The case originated from a citation concerning crossing an intersection on a red light, detected by an automatic detection system, known as PARVC (Project Automation Red Violation Control). The Court highlighted that, in the absence of prior approval for the installation and positioning of the device by the municipal council, the citation of the violation must be considered illegitimate.

Crossing an intersection with a red traffic light - Photographic detection carried out in a built-up area using an automatic detection traffic light system (so-called PARVC) - Omission of prior approval for the installation and positioning of the device by resolution of the municipal council - Deferred citation of the violation - Legitimacy - Exclusion - Basis. Regarding the violation of Article 146, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 1992 (crossing an intersection with the traffic light showing red), if the detection was carried out in a built-up area through photographic detection by means of an automatic traffic light system, so-called PARVC (Project Automation Red Violation Control), the deferred citation is illegitimate in the absence of prior approval for the installation and positioning of the device by resolution of the municipal council, because it occurred without adequate administrative derogation regulation by the owner entity.

Relevance of the Ruling

This ruling fits into an already complex regulatory framework, governed by the Highway Code (Legislative Decree No. 285/1992). In particular, Article 146, paragraph 3, establishes the rules for crossing signalized intersections. The Court reiterated that the legitimacy of penalties depends not only on the violation itself but also on the correct implementation of the procedures for installing and approving detection devices. Without an express resolution by the municipal council, citizens are deprived of one of the fundamental guarantees, namely legal certainty.

Practical Implications for Citizens

The decision of the Court of Cassation has several practical implications:

• Protection of citizens' rights: Every penalty must be supported by a correct administrative procedure.
• Clarity in regulation: It is essential for municipalities to adopt clear regulations regarding the use of automatic detection systems.
• Possibility of contestation: Citizens can contest penalties received if there has not been prior approval for the installation of the systems.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 21894 of 2024 serves as an important legal precedent, reaffirming the principle of legality in road traffic penalties. It emphasizes the importance of correct regulation by local authorities, not only to ensure compliance with rules but also to protect citizens' rights. It is crucial that the competent authorities take note of these indications and operate in compliance with the established procedures, to avoid future legal disputes.