Unverified speed camera? The fine can be annulled.

The evolution of traffic litigation has led to increased scrutiny of the legitimacy of speeding fines assessed using electronic tools. Among these, speed cameras are the undisputed protagonists of automated enforcement of violations. However, the legal validity of a fine based on electronic detection requires one essential element: the device's calibration. If this is missing, the fine may be voided due to lack of legal validity.

The position of the Court of Cassation and the principle of technical reliability

The Court of Cassation, with ruling 113 of 2015, established that all speed camera devices must undergo periodic technical inspections to ensure their detection is reliable and legally valid. The principle underlying this position is simple: a citizen can only be fined if the violation was detected using scientifically reliable and properly certified instruments. Otherwise, the automatic application of an administrative fine cannot be expected.

Several lower court rulings have confirmed the Supreme Court's ruling. In the courts of Frosinone, Pavia, Savona, and Naples, judges upheld appeals filed by motorists who demonstrated the absence of certified calibration or technical inspection reports for their detection equipment. In some cases, the authorities were ordered to reimburse legal fees .

A little-known aspect concerns the tolerance margins applicable to speed detection devices. The law provides for an automatic reduction of 5 km/h for speeds under 100 km/h , or 5% for speeds above that . In practice, even a calibrated device must apply this tolerance when calculating the fine. If the ticket fails to mention the discounted value, or fails to apply it at all, the citizen has the right to contest the fine for failure to comply with the legal criteria.

The location of the speed camera also affects the validity of the fine. The law requires that the locations be pre-marked, visible, and authorized. If the speed camera is hidden, unmarked, or installed in locations not covered by the plan approved by the prefecture, the fine may be canceled. Failure to publish the list of fixed locations on the prefecture's website annually may also constitute a procedural flaw.

The case of the Frosinone sentence

In June 2025, a ruling by the Court of Frosinone sparked controversy, annulling a speed camera fine due to the lack of proof of a functional check. The judge ruled that annual calibration alone is not enough: proof is also required that the device was functional and operational at the exact moment it detected the violation. The case was considered exemplary in reiterating the principle that a citizen cannot be punished without irrefutable technical evidence.

The consequences on the constitutional level

The principle established by the Constitutional Court has strengthened taxpayer protection. The reliability of sanctions is an essential element of administrative legality. In other words, a state cannot demand obedience unless it is the first to respect transparency and legal certainty.

Municipalities that use speed cameras for road safety purposes are sometimes accused of misusing them for purely punitive or fiscal purposes. Case law requires a change of pace: simply installing a speed camera and issuing fines is no longer sufficient. Every technical aspect, from installation to testing, must be documented. Otherwise, the fine risks being deemed unlawful due to a lack of due diligence.

The difference between approval, homologation and calibration

In practice, the concept of device approval is confused with that of type-approval , but it is periodic calibration that determines whether the device is suitable for detecting an offense. Even when the speed camera has been approved by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, the administration is exempt from subjecting it to annual inspections, as required by the ministerial decree of August 7, 2017. Failure to perform any of these checks, calibration in particular, makes the fine appealable before a justice of the peace or the prefect.

Another distinction is between the annual calibration , which certifies the instrument's accuracy according to the manufacturer's standards and UNI regulations, and the functional check , which serves to verify that the device is operational and installed. The latter must be performed by the person using the device—usually the local police—and recorded in a logbook or report. Failure to complete both checks, or even just one, can be enough to invalidate the fine .

When and how to appeal

When a citizen receives a speeding ticket detected by a speed camera, the first thing to examine is the content of the ticket. Failure to include the calibration date, proof of functionality, or at least a reference to the device's technical certificate constitutes a procedural flaw that could invalidate the entire fine. In these cases, the burden of proof falls not on the citizen, but on the administration issuing the ticket, which must objectively and documentally demonstrate the device's functioning at the time of the violation.

If the driver receives a fine and you suspect the speed camera was not properly calibrated, you have the right to file an appeal within 30 days with the Justice of the Peace or within 60 days with the Prefect. You must attach all available information to your appeal: a copy of the traffic ticket, a request for access to documents to obtain proof of calibration, and any relevant legal precedents.

Current legislation guarantees the right to access administrative documents . After receiving a fine, the driver can submit a formal request to the Police Headquarters or the managing body to obtain a copy of the calibration certificate, the functional test report, and all technical documents relating to the device. If the administration fails to respond or denies access within 30 days, this constitutes a violation of Law 241 of 1990, and a further appeal can be filed for lack of transparency.

The role of the calibration certificate, contents and deadlines

The calibration certificate must be issued by an Accredia-accredited center or, alternatively, by the device manufacturer if authorized. The document must contain the serial number, model, inspection date, margin of error, and signature of the certifying technician. It is valid for twelve months. If the fine is imposed after the certificate expires, the procedure loses the technical basis on which it is based. Therefore, in the appeals process, requesting a copy of the certificate is one of the most effective steps.