The Court of Cassation returns to wandering the indiscriminate use of speed cameras. After the ruling 113/15 of the Constitutional Court, all the devices that measure the speed of vehicles on the roads must be subjected to periodic verification and calibration, under penalty of the annulment of the fine. Specifically, it can be assumed that speed cameras are reliable only if the report indicates that the instruments have been subjected to calibration and periodic review as required by constitutional ruling 113/15; when the offender disputes the speed detection carried out, the judge is required to ascertain whether or not the device has been subjected to checks: otherwise the driver's complaints must be considered founded. Therefore, to consider the fine valid, it is not sufficient for the administration to certify or demonstrate the existence of the approval of the equipment, as recalled by the Court of Cassation which, by order 33414/2022 filed on November 11, upheld the appeal of a motorist. The Justice of the Peace of Avellino had annulled the report contesting a fine imposed with a speed camera as it lacked the calibration and approval of the speed measuring device. The Court of Avellino, however, has reformed the decision noting that it is not for the administration to provide evidence in court of the calibration and efficiency of electronic equipment: on the contrary, it is the offender who must provide proof of operating defects. Nor does the Highway Code and its implementing regulation require the assessment report to contain the performance certificate. It is also true that, for equipment with type approval, the evidentiary effectiveness of the equipment operates until it is ascertained, in the concrete case, the defect of construction, installation or operation of the device. The dispute has thus come to the Court of Cassation, where the applicant has supported that the municipal administration must always carry out the checks to ensure the correct functioning of the speed devices. The Supreme Court, in accepting the appeal, affirmed that after the ruling of the Constitutional Court 113 of 2015 "all speed measurement equipment (which is an evaluable and measurable element) must be periodically calibrated and verified in their correct functioning, which cannot be demonstrated or certified by other means such as type-approval and conformity certifications, hence the calibration certificate is sufficient for this purpose".
|