The fact that the Municipalities contract out the speed camera service to private companies is not a good reason to ask for the cancellation of the fines of the drivers sanctioned for speeding, this problem, if anything, concerns "the validity of the establishment of the relationship between the body local and private but has no impact on the assessment of the factual conditions of the assessment carried out through "rental devices.
The Supreme Court underlines this by confirming the validity of a fine issued by a Sardinian municipality that pays a fee of approximately 29% of the proceeds of the sanctions to the private rental company.
With this verdict - sentence 28719 filed today by the Second Civil Section -, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a driver from Sardinia, Mrs Patrizia M., defended by the lawyer Rossella Oppo of the Oristano Forum, against the fine ascertained by the police service urban area of the Municipality of Arborea (Oristano) on the basis of what was detected in June 2008 by the Traffiphot speed camera approved in 2004. In the complaint to the Supreme Court, Patrizia M. argued that "although the law n.168 of 2002 allows violations of speed limits, however this is permissible as long as the devices are managed under the direct control of the traffic police body ".
Instead, the violation - Patrizia insisted - "had not been ascertained by the agents of the Municipal Police,
confirmed the validity of the fine as established "correctly", in their opinion, by the Court of Oristano in 2018, while in the first instance the Justice of the Peace of Terralba had annulled the report.
For the Supreme Court, "the remuneration of the service in relation to the proceeds of administrative sanctions is not relevant since the violations must be ascertained by the Municipal Police, nor is there any profile of invalidity of the report connected to the restriction of destination of the proceeds, for at least half, for particular public purposes "as provided for by art.
208 of the Highway Code.
In this regard, the Supreme Court considers that "art. 208 Cds, providing that a portion of the proceeds of administrative pecuniary sanctions for violations" are "devolved to public bodies,
As for the calibration of speed cameras, the contract was clear "in attributing the full availability, direct management and supervision of the devices exclusively to the Municipality".
In addition to the fine, patrician M. must also pay a thousand euros of legal fees in favor of the Municipality of Arborea defended by the lawyer Giovanni Maria Urru.
