Judge says two fines in 72 hours is too much and should not be paid

Penalty revoked: no fine to be paid. On Monday, the Milan magistrate dismissed two reports of a Milan driver who had twice triggered his speed camera on the new Cassanese road in the Pioltello municipal district. Confident that he respected the borders and the highway regulation, the driver appealed to the association “Migliore tutela”, which prepared the objections through the legal technical structure “Altvelox” and was then fully accepted by the Milan court. What happened in detail? “An integral and important part of the appeals was the request for an official document and access to documents sent to the metropolitan, the receipt of a number of technical documents related to billboards and above all the speed camera used for disputes”, reissued by the Association. Noting that the public administration was “only partially” able to provide the requested documents, “but the delivery of the technical document of primary importance referring to the electronic tool is incomplete”.

However, this is not the only reason for the lifting of sanctions. “The judge – continues from Altvelox – also focused on the important aspect of the violations committed in, say, the big city of Milan, in a very short period of time for the driver to realize that the controversial act ‘if he did anything’ was committed. was done.” Basically, according to the judge, two fines in three days – exactly those “earned” by the driver – are too much, because the driver himself is not aware that he has committed the crime.

“The above-mentioned circumstances led this judge to consider that the repeated paragraph 4 of Article 8 of Law No. 689 of 1981 was applicable to the present case. The cited article states that administrative violations after the first are not considered in terms of recurrence when committed in a short time and up to a unitary assessment. can be followed”. “There are two conditions for recounting: Another violation of the same nature committed within a short period of time and several violations of the same nature committed within a short period of time are determined by a single enforcement order.” In this respect, it is a temporal element, another element that can be deduced from the commission in a short time, from the aforementioned chronological connection, and from the different aspects created by the suitability for a unitary planning. From this point of view, unitary planning should be understood as the expression of an identical attitude towards a particular legal fulfillment whose non-compliance leads to infringement. The judge concluded that the appellant committed all violations in the same spot due to a misinterpretation of the legislation, and that itself being within the speed limit. From this perspective, in this judge’s view, the closeness between the violations must be assessed. It’s clear that whoever made the mistake repeated it.”

Therefore, the following conclusion is reached: “For this reason, considering that the violations committed by the driver of the motor vehicle belonging to the claimant can be attributed to the same erroneous assessment and that the violations were committed within a limited period of 3 days in the case; At this point, Article 8, paragraph 4 of the Law No. 689/1981 application of the provisions is accepted”. Simply put: canceled penalties.

Source: Today IT