Guide without a license: commentary on judgment no. 30502 of 2024

The recent ordinance no. 30502 of July 10, 2024, filed on July 25, 2024, offers significant insights for understanding the evolution of legislation on driving without a license. In particular, the Court of Appeal of Florence has addressed the delicate issue of recidivism within a two-year period, which is essential for determining whether an offense can fall under the depenalization provision set forth in Article 5 of Legislative Decree no. 8 of January 5, 2016.

Regulatory context

Driving without a license is an offense that, following legislative amendments, can be depenalized under certain circumstances. The law provides that, to exclude the offense from depenalization, recidivism within a two-year period must exist. However, the Court has clarified that the production of documentary evidence of the finality of the prior offense is not necessary. This element represents a step forward in simplifying procedures, allowing for a more flexible approach in assessing recidivism.

The ruling's maxim

Recidivism within a two-year period - Repetition of a depenalized offense - Sufficient proof of finality - Documentary production - Necessity - Exclusion. In matters of driving without a license, to prove recidivism within a two-year period, sufficient to exclude the offense from depenalization pursuant to art. 5 of Legislative Decree of January 5, 2016, no. 8, it is not necessary to produce documentary evidence of the finality of the prior offense's ascertainment, but it is sufficient to have evidence, accompanied by the appellant's failure to allege having filed an appeal against the imposition of the sanction or a request for obliteration that was not rejected, while upholding the principle that the proof of the finality of the ascertainment lies with the prosecution, so that the relevant demonstration can be provided with elements of certain probative value from which, in the absence of contrary allegations by the interested party, one can infer the certainty of the finality of the previous administrative violation.

This maxim highlights that proof of recidivism can be considered valid even in the absence of formal documentation, provided there are concrete elements of proof. This means that the appellant has the burden of proving that they contested the ascertainment, while the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the finality of the offense.

Practical implications

Judgment no. 30502 offers important guidance for lawyers and citizens. In particular, the key points to consider are:

• Proof of recidivism does not require specific documentation but can be based on sufficient evidence.
• It is crucial for the appellant to contest the original ascertainment to avoid the configuration of recidivism.
• The Court has emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution, confirming the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Conclusions

The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Florence offers an important interpretation of the issue of driving without a license and recidivism. By simplifying the evidentiary requirements and clarifying the responsibilities of the prosecution and the defense, it contributes to a fairer application of the rules. It is essential for citizens to understand their rights and obligations regarding road traffic to avoid incurring more severe penalties in case of recidivism.