New and stricter requirements for the validity of reports based on the results of speed cameras. On February 8, 2022, with the Order No. 4007, the Court of Cassation clarified the correct interpretation of Article 142 of the Highway Code. Now reports for speeding can be annulled if the speed camera is not clearly visible to drivers.
The TEXT of the law:
Article 142 of the Highway Code in paragraph 6 bis states:
«Control stations on the road network for speed detection must be clearly signaled in advance and visible, using signs or light signaling devices in accordance with the rules established in the implementation regulation of this code.».
The legal issue arose around the correct interpretation of the phrase “clearly visible” and more specifically, it was questioned whether it was a standalone requirement or a reinforcing repetition of the provision that requires prior signaling. The Justice of the Peace and subsequently the Court of Vicenza both opted for the latter interpretative option, arguing that the visibility requirement should refer to the warning signs and not to the control stations.
The INTERPRETATION of the Court of Cassation on fixed and mobile speed cameras:
The judges of the Supreme Court, however, had a different opinion, and after analyzing the text of the law, they correctly ruled:
“Article 142, paragraph 6-bis, of the Highway Code, […] must be interpreted in the sense that, both for fixed and mobile positions, the requirement for prior notification of the position and the requirement for its visibility are distinct and autonomous and must both be satisfied for the legitimacy of the speed detection carried out through the position”.
In the reasoning of the decision, the judges specified how the first provision aims to ensure that motorists are informed of the presence of fixed speed cameras and mobile speed cameras before passing in front of them, while the second provision serves to allow motorists to actually identify the control position when passing in front of it and to be aware of the time and place of the detection.
The reasoning of the Supreme Court had already been partially addressed in ruling no. 29595/2021, but now, through a more precise examination of the entire paragraph 6-bis, the purpose and precise meaning of the expression “well visible”. The scope of the text is also extended to unmarked cars, vehicles lacking any institutional color and therefore not otherwise identifiable.
THE REQUIREMENTS in light of the ruling:
The Court of Cassation has therefore accepted the appeal and definitively clarified that the requirements for the validity of the sanctions based on speed camera detections are two:
- the control station must be signaled with adequate notice;
- the actual speed detection device must be clearly visible and recognizable to drivers