Distinction between approval and homologation of speed cameras

1. The fact

   According to reports by Il Messaggero and Altalex, the case arises from serial litigation regarding the use of speed detection devices, with particular reference to models widely used across the national territory. The specific case saw a motorist challenge a speeding ticket before the Justice of the Peace, reaching the Court of Cassation after the Court of Treviso had already addressed the issue at the appeal level. At the heart of the dispute is the use of equipment with ministerial approval but lacking a formal homologation decree, a distinction that many local administrations considered superfluous but which judges deemed decisive for the validity of the detection. The Supreme Court recently filed an order that defined the legal issue, overcoming the Ministry's contrary position, and ruling that penalties issued with devices that were not properly homologated are null and void.

2. 

   The laws involved

   1. Article 142, paragraph 6, of the Highway Code states that for the detection of violations, the results from duly homologated equipment constitute a source of evidence.
   2. Article 192 of the Execution Regulation distinguishes between homologation, which requires compliance with precise technical specifications, and approval, provided for devices lacking predefined standards, making the two procedures non-interchangeable.
   3. Article 345, paragraph 2, of the Execution Regulation of the CdS specifies that for the detection of speed limit violations, equipment whose homologation has been recorded in the fine must be used.

3. What case law says

   The case law of the Supreme Court has clarified that approval and homologation are distinct procedures and that the lack of the latter cannot be cured by the former. According to the court, the homologation requirement addresses the need to guarantee the technical reliability of the instrument through rigorous and standardized verification. The Court emphasized that the administration cannot ignore the legislative mandate requiring express homologation for the evidentiary efficacy of the detection. This orientation aims to protect citizens by ensuring that penalties derive from instruments technically validated according to the highest criteria of precision and impartiality.

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

   1. It is necessary to meticulously verify the nature of the decree referred to in the report, distinguishing between approval and homologation through a records access request.
   2. It is essential to plead the nullity of the detection from the first defensive act, highlighting the non-interchangeability of administrative technical verification procedures.
   3. One must monitor the evolution of ministerial technical regulations, as future decrees might attempt to retroactively cure existing approvals.
   4. It is advisable to emphasize to the client the importance of a timely appeal to prevent the fine from becoming an unappealable enforceable title.

References: Art. 142 Codice della StradaArt. 192 Regolamento di Esecuzione CdSArt. 345 Regolamento CdS

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 26 September 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