The New Speed Camera Decree and the Homologation Issue

1. The facts

   The issue gained national prominence when the Court of Cassation filed an order questioning the validity of most speed detection devices in use. The case originated from an appeal against an administrative sanction imposed in Veneto, which reached the final stage of judgment. At the center of the dispute is the nature of the device used for the assessment, which was subject to simple ministerial approval but lacked the specific homologation required by the Highway Code.

   In parallel, the Government intervened with the Ministerial Decree of April 11, 2024, aimed at regulating the placement of speed cameras to prevent their purely vexatious use or use aimed at boosting municipal coffers. However, the decree did not introduce an amnesty for devices lacking homologation, leaving a regulatory gap that is fueling thousands of appeals before Justices of the Peace. The current procedural stage sees a flood of annulments based precisely on the lack of a fundamental technical act that guarantees the accuracy of the measurement.

2. 

   The rules at play

   The relevant regulatory framework revolves around three main pillars that define the validity requirements for the assessment.

   1. Article 142, paragraph 6, of the Highway Code requires that equipment used for speed control be duly homologated by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport to hold evidentiary value.
   2. Article 192 of the Highway Code Implementing Regulation clearly distinguishes between homologation, which concerns compliance with pre-established technical standards, and approval, which applies to devices lacking reference technical standards.
   3. The Ministerial Decree of April 11, 2024, establishes the criteria for device placement, imposing minimum distances and adequate signage, but does not substitute the technical requirements of the device itself.

   The main consequence of violating these rules is the evidentiary ineffectiveness of the official report. If the instrument is not homologated, the speed measurement is not backed by the presumption of accuracy and the sanctioning measure is affected by an incurable defect of legality, leading to the annulment of the fine and the order for the authority to refund legal costs.

3. What the jurisprudence says

   Supreme Court case law has recently consolidated a strict approach aimed at protecting citizens and public trust. The court clarified that homologation and approval are not synonymous terms, and that ministerial circulars attempting to equate them cannot override primary statutory provisions. The core principle established is that only the homologation procedure guarantees the long-term stability and reliability of measurements through rigorous technical verification.

   Furthermore, constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed that all measuring devices must undergo periodic checks to ensure proper functionality. Although those rulings initially concerned calibration, the Court of Cassation extended the same principle to the device's inception phase: without a homologation decree certifying compliance with regulatory standards, the assessment cannot be considered unassailable. Justices of the Peace are aligning with this approach, setting aside fines whenever the Public Administration fails to produce the specific homologation certificate in court.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   Legal professionals can draw key operational guidance from this line of jurisprudence.

   1. Examine the underlying authorization: verifying the exact nature of the approval act is essential, as public authorities often use terms interchangeably.
   2. Challenge the burden of proof: the administration must produce the original homologation certificate rather than mere copies or circular references.
   3. Check spatial compliance: the 2024 decree provides additional grounds for challenge regarding the minimum distance between signage and the device.
   4. Plan a timely defense: advise clients to file a prompt appeal, avoiding reduced-rate payments that would bar any subsequent legal action.

9. Developments: the Bologna turning point and the 2026 decree

   A significant turning point in the management of appeals arrived with judgment 1816/2025 from the Court of Bologna, published on August 9, 2025. Judge Alessandra Cardarelli dismissed a motorist's appeal, ruling that approval and homologation are functionally equivalent for the purposes of the fine's validity. As reported by La Repubblica in September 2025, this decision contrasts with previous Supreme Court orientations by shifting the burden of proof: it is no longer sufficient to claim a lack of homologation, but one must demonstrate a technical malfunction of the device. Concurrently, Quattroruote reported the entry into force, on July 12, 2026, of the new Speed Camera Decree, which defines the technical requirements for homologation procedures in an attempt to fill the regulatory gap. The presumption of innocence remains guaranteed for all individuals involved in ongoing administrative or judicial proceedings.

References: Art. 142 Codice della StradaArt. 192 Regolamento di Esecuzione D.P.R. 495/1992D.M. 11 aprile 2024

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 4 August 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction