Speed ​​camera fine? It is void if the device is not verified

It is yet another chapter in a complex dispute involving hundreds of thousands of Italian motorists. The subject of the debate has been in the public domain for some time now: the validity of fines issued by unapproved speed cameras . A topic that has generated a growing number of appeals and sparked discussion in courtrooms, to the point of involving the Court of Cassation. In fact, there are more and more cases involving this type of situation. It is therefore better to investigate the latest updates.

One last relevant case

In the vast list of issues that have to do with unapproved speed cameras, we can add the story that arose along the Sora – Frosinone highway, at kilometer 17+800, during which a driver received a fine for speeding detected by a fixed device. After the first appeal was rejected by the Justice of the Peace, the Court of Frosinone decided differently. In fact, with the sentence, it annulled the fine , also condemning the Prefecture to pay the legal costs.

According to the judge, therefore, the documentation presented was not sufficient to demonstrate the full reliability of the assessment. The key point is the distinction, often overlooked, between calibration and verification of operation. The first certifies that the equipment is correctly set with respect to the original parameters. The second, instead, certifies that the device continues to function correctly over time. In this case, the calibration was regularly carried out, but there was no proof that the speed camera had been subjected to a technical check before its use, as required by current legislation. A lack that determined, according to the judge, the illegitimacy of the sanction.

An increasingly intricate picture

The decision is part of a framework already complicated by the intervention of the Court of Cassation, which recently recognized the nullity of fines issued with “ approved ” but “ not approved ” devices, opening up an even more delicate interpretative front. In one of its latest rulings, the Supreme Court has in fact added a further requirement: to obtain the cancellation of the sanction, a complaint for forgery would be necessary against the officer who drew up the report.

A position that has raised numerous criticisms, both among lawyers and among consumer associations, who see in this approach an almost insurmountable obstacle to the defense of the citizen. The ruling of the Court of Frosinone therefore marks a change of pace, bringing attention back to the technical and procedural profile of automatic controls, rather than to the formal and documentary one. And it raises a question that goes beyond the individual case: how many of the fines issued in Italy via speed cameras are not supported by a real verification of the functioning of the devices?

For municipalities, this is a considerable risk . For motorists, however, a new legal lever appears to be used in appeals. Meanwhile, in the courts, discussions continue not only on the legality of the instruments, but also on the very principle of reliability of the evidence against them. In a country where road safety coexists with the need to balance municipal budgets, the line between control and sanction risks becoming increasingly thin. And each sentence, like the one in Frosinone, contributes to redefining a balance that is still far from being found. Let's hope that someone finally manages to put an exclamation point on this thorny issue. With all due respect to everyone.