Speed cameras and electronic speed enforcement: homologation, calibration and the burden of proof

The validity of fines imposed through speed cameras remains at the centre of a complex debate involving public administrations, motorists and courts. The issue does not concern only the physical presence of the device on the road or the regular installation of the station, but above all the technical and legal reliability of the instrument used to detect the offence.

The current state of the law can be summarised in three principles:

• the equipment must have the required ministerial homologation (type approval); mere approval is not sufficient;

• periodic functional and calibration checks must be documented;

• when the motorist challenges the reliability of the device, it is for the public administration to provide documentary proof of the regularity of the equipment.

These principles are consistent with the approach of the Italian Court of Cassation starting from order No. 10505 of 18 April 2024, reaffirmed by subsequent decisions (most recently, order No. 31876/2025 and order No. 14285/2026), and have also been applied by the courts of first instance, in particular the Court of Frosinone in judgments No. 349/2026, No. 490/2026 and no. 504/2026 reaffirming the same principle.

The regulatory framework

The relevant rules are mainly contained in the Italian Highway Code (Legislative Decree No. 285/1992), in particular Articles 45 and 142.

Article 142(6) provides that, for the purpose of determining compliance with speed limits, the results of duly homologated equipment — including for calculating the average speed over given stretches — are considered sources of evidence, as specified by the implementing regulation. The provision therefore makes the evidentiary effectiveness of the detection conditional on the prior homologation of the instrument, with no reference to merely approved equipment.

Article 45(6) concerns the approval and homologation of devices and equipment used for the detection and automatic recording of traffic offences: the implementing regulation specifies the technical means subject to either procedure, without prejudice to the obligation of periodic functional and calibration checks for devices with a metrological function. The regulatory framework, contained in Article 192 of Presidential Decree No. 495/1992, distinguishes the two procedures: homologation follows the verification that the prototype complies with the prescriptions of the regulation (para. 2); approval concerns elements for which the regulation does not lay down fundamental characteristics or particular prescriptions (para. 3); every element conforming to the homologated or approved prototype must bear the number and date of the ministerial decree (para. 7).

The issue was made even more significant by the judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 113/2015, which declared Article 45(6) of the Highway Code constitutionally illegitimate insofar as it did not provide that all equipment used for speed detection be subject to periodic functional and calibration checks, since these electronic devices may undergo variations in their metrological characteristics as a result of component decay and mechanical and thermal stress. Following that judgment, paragraph 6 was supplemented with an express reference to the obligation of periodic checks for devices with a metrological function.

A general principle follows from that decision: it is not enough that the device worked at the time of installation or that it underwent an initial check; its reliability must be ensured through periodic checks.

Approval and homologation do not coincide

The most controversial point concerns the difference between approval and homologation.

According to the Court of Cassation, these are distinct procedures with different nature and purposes. Approval concerns, in general terms, the recognition of the suitability of a model or prototype with respect to certain technical characteristics and is a preliminary, albeit autonomous, step with respect to homologation. Homologation, on the other hand, presupposes a stricter verification of the device's compliance with the characteristics and prescriptions laid down by the regulation and authorises the serial production of the verified model.

With order No. 10505/2024 the Supreme Court held that homologation is an indispensable requirement for the lawfulness of the detection and cannot be equated with mere approval, since, pursuant to Article 142(6) of the Highway Code and Article 192 of the implementing regulation, these are procedures with different characteristics, nature and purposes.

The same approach has subsequently been reaffirmed in numerous conforming decisions: order No. 20913/2024, order No. 12924/2025 (which clarified that the existence of annual calibration is a different and subsidiary element compared to the need for homologation), order No. 26521/2025, order No. 8797/2026 and, most recently, order No. 14285/2026, which declared a local authority's appeal inadmissible under Article 360-bis of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, since the challenged judgment had decided in accordance with the settled case law of the Court.

The principle has also found application in criminal matters: the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, with judgment No. 36051/2025, recognised that the offence of fraud in public supplies (Article 356 of the Criminal Code) may be established when speed detection equipment is delivered subject to mere approval rather than homologation, where the contracts provided for the supply of homologated devices.

It follows that a ministerial decree of approval is not necessarily sufficient to prove that the device possesses all the requirements needed for the validity of the detection.

The role of administrative circulars

Part of the litigation has been fuelled by administrative indications oriented towards considering, for practical purposes, approval and homologation as substantially equivalent procedures.

However, according to the approach of the Court of Cassation, ministerial circulars cannot amend the meaning of primary rules nor introduce an equation not provided for by the Highway Code and its implementing regulation. Ministerial opinions and administrative circulars cannot, in fact, modify the prescriptive content of primary legislation, pursuant to Article 12 of the Preliminary Provisions of the Civil Code. It has also been clarified that circulars endorsing a possible equivalence between homologation and approval cannot have any influence at the interpretative level, being mere non-procedural administrative acts without normative value.

The judge must therefore verify concretely which administrative title concerns the device used: it is not enough for the report to make a generic reference to "homologated" or "approved" equipment.

Calibration must be periodic

Homologation does not exhaust the necessary requirements.

All speed measuring instruments must be subject to periodic checks of:

• functionality;

• calibration;

• reliability of the instrument;

• compliance with the characteristics of the homologated model.

Circular No. 300/A4745/15/144/5/20/5 of the Ministry of the Interior of 26 June 2015 had already provided, for remotely controlled equipment or equipment intended for deferred reporting of offences, checks at least annually, to be carried out at an ACCREDIA-accredited centre (the sole national body authorised to carry out accreditation activities pursuant to Article 4 of Law No. 99/2009) or at the manufacturer itself, if qualified for corporate quality certification in accordance with ISO 9001/2000 standards.

The case law of the Court of Cassation has given weight to this periodicity, holding that the initial calibration alone is insufficient. Order No. 31876/2025 reaffirmed that the check must be repeated over time, at least annually, and that, in the event of a challenge, the administration must produce the relevant documentation. Order No. 7374/2026 extended the principle to remote detection equipment, specifying that calibration is due regardless of whether the device operates automatically, in the presence of operators or through self-diagnosis systems.

Ministerial Decree No. 282 of 13 June 2017 then provided that initial and periodic calibration checks must be carried out, with the issue of a calibration certificate, by entities operating in accordance with the requirements of the UNI CEI EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard as calibration laboratories, accredited by ACCREDIA or by other accreditation bodies that are signatories, at international level, of mutual recognition agreements.

The Court of Cassation has also clarified that calibration and functional checks are distinct activities performing different functions and cannot be confused with one another: order No. 30126/2023 annulled a report in which, one year after the publication of Decree No. 282/2017, the device had not been subject to new calibration, despite periodic functional checks having been carried out.

The decree of 8 June 2026 and the transparency of equipment

The so-called "speed camera decree" of 8 June 2026 (published in the Official Gazette No. 159 of 11 July 2026 and in force from the following day), has repealed the decree of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport of 13 June 2017, with the exception of Chapter 7 of the annex and the provisions on periodic calibration, confirming that the procedure of prior ministerial approval of speed enforcement devices is not equivalent to the ministerial homologation procedure. As this is a very recently enacted instrument, its details and content should be verified in the Official Gazette.

On the transparency side, Article 5(3-bis) of Law-Decree No. 73/2025 introduced a further obligation on the administrations and entities on which the traffic police authorities depend: the communication to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport of data relating to speed enforcement equipment, indicating, for each device, compliance with an approved or homologated type, brand and model, for publication in the dedicated section of the Ministry's online portal.

Without prejudice to the requirements of placement and use, as well as of approval and homologation, provided for by the legislation in force, the communication constitutes a necessary condition for the legitimate use of the equipment.

The rules thus fit into a system in which homologated devices, devices approved under previous decrees, equipment subject to confirmations or updates of approval, and instruments for which the transitional rules and the calibration regime must be verified, coexist. In proceedings, therefore, a generic reference to the speed camera model will not suffice: it will be necessary to identify the device actually used, the relevant administrative measure and the pertinent technical documentation.

The burden of proof

One of the most significant effects of recent case law concerns the allocation of the burden of proof.

As a general rule, the administration must prove the constituent elements of the sanctioning claim. Among these is also the correct functioning of the equipment used for speed detection, which constitutes an essential constituent element of the sanctioning case.

When the recipient of the penalty challenges the reliability of the device, it is therefore for the public administration to provide positive proof of:

• the initial homologation;

• the conformity of the device;

• the periodic calibration;

• the functional check;

• the reference of the certificates to the device actually used for the detection.

Only after the administration has produced such documentation — elements in themselves sufficient to prove the correct functioning of the apparatus — can the burden of contrary proof shift to the sanctioned party, namely the burden of proving that the equipment, despite the checks carried out, was not functioning at the time of the detection (in this sense, Cass. No. 19732/2024).

The rule was clearly stated by the Court of Frosinone in judgments No. 349/2026 and No. 490/2026: where the reliability of the speed camera is challenged, the judge must concretely verify that the public administration actually carried out the functional and calibration checks. It is not sufficient to produce the original approval decree or the initial homologation — checks performed once before delivery of the device: proof of periodic calibration, a check to be carried out annually, is required. The mere statement contained in the report is not sufficient, because the report does not enjoy privileged evidentiary value as to the correct technical functioning of the device. The Court of Grosseto (judgment No. 266/2026), which annulled a report for failure to prove the homologation of a merely approved device, and the Court of Vallo della Lucania (judgment No. 107/2026), which annulled a report where calibration turned out to have been carried out after the date of the offence, move in the same direction.

The report is not enough

The Court of Cassation has distinguished two aspects that are often confused.

The report may have privileged evidentiary value, within the limits provided by Article 2700 of the Civil Code, for what was directly perceived by the public official, such as the identity of the vehicle, the presence of the officers or the outward circumstances of the detection.

The technical assessment of the reliability of the instrument is a different matter. The reporting officer cannot transform, with a simple statement, a device lacking technical documentation into a regularly verified instrument: the officers' assessments, the result of mere sensory perception, do not enjoy privileged evidentiary value on this point. The generic wording "duly homologated and revised" added by the reporting officers is not sufficient.

Proof of functionality and calibration must result from the technical and certification documentation provided for by the regulations. According to order No. 31876/2025, such proof cannot be inferred from the mere indication contained in the report and cannot be replaced by a generic statement by the officers.

The Court of Cassation has nevertheless clarified that the failure to indicate in the report the details of the calibration certificate does not automatically determine the unlawfulness of the sanction. With order No. 414/2025 it held that it is not necessary for the report to contain the indication of the certificate of regular calibration, it being sufficient to mention the details relating to the type of device, homologation, calibration and functional check, since the relevant certification may be filed separately in the proceedings. In the event of a challenge, the administration must produce the certification, provided that the check was actually carried out. In the same sense, order No. 428/2025 held that the failure to mention the calibration certificate does not prejudice the rights of defence of the sanctioned party, who may challenge the actual performance of the checks, thereby shifting onto the administration the burden of producing the certification.

The distinction is therefore important:

• the failure to mention the certificate in the report is not necessarily decisive;

• the failure to produce the certificate, after a specific challenge, may instead determine the insufficiency of the proof;

• a simple statement in the report does not replace the technical certification.

The importance of the correct characterisation is not only civil: the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, with judgment No. 36051/2025, clarified that a report falsely attesting the homologation of equipment that was only approved may constitute the offence of ideological falsehood, precisely because such attestation is not supported by privileged evidentiary value under Article 2700 of the Civil Code.

The main decisions

Decision	Principle established
Constitutional Court No. 113/2015	All speed detection equipment must be subject to periodic functional and calibration checks.
Cass. civ. No. 10505/2024	Homologation is an indispensable requirement for the lawfulness of the detection and is not equivalent to mere approval.
Cass. civ. Nos. 12924/2025 and 26521/2025	Annual calibration is a different and subsidiary element compared to the necessary homologation; circulars cannot endorse the equivalence.
Cass. civ. No. 31876/2025	In the event of a challenge, the administration must prove homologation and calibration through documentation; the report has no privileged evidentiary value as to technical functioning.
Cass. civ. No. 414/2025	It is not necessary for the report to state the details of the calibration certificate, if the administration produces it in the proceedings.
Cass. civ. No. 19732/2024	Once the administration has produced the homologation and calibration certificates, the burden of proving contrary malfunction shifts to the sanctioned party.
Cass. civ. No. 30126/2023	Calibration and functional checks are distinct activities; where a year has passed without new calibration, the report is void.
Cass. pen. No. 36051/2025	The delivery of devices that are only approved rather than homologated constitutes fraud in public supplies; a report falsely attesting homologation is an ideological falsehood.
Court of Frosinone Nos. 349/2026 and 490/2026	The judge must concretely ascertain homologation and periodic checks when the reliability of the device is challenged; the mere statement in the report is not enough.
Court of Grosseto No. 266/2026; Court of Vallo della Lucania No. 107/2026	Annulment of the report for failure to prove homologation or calibration referring to the time of the offence.

The case law picture is not entirely free of fluctuations, especially at first instance: some decisions on the merits have given greater weight to the statements contained in the report, considering them covered by privileged evidentiary value as to homologation and functional checks (in this sense, for example, Court of Rome, judgments Nos. 5897 and 5201/2024). The approach of the Court of Cassation, however, is settled in the opposite sense: the report does not constitute conclusive evidence as to the technical assessment of the functioning of the device, which must be proved through certification documentation, and the conformity of the challenged judgment with that principle makes the appeal to the Court of Cassation inadmissible under Article 360-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure (Cass. No. 14285/2026).

Precisely for this reason, the defence must formulate specific challenges and distinguish:

• the existence of the administrative measure;

• the nature of the measure, whether approval or homologation;

• the conformity of the device actually used;

• the temporal validity of the calibration;

• the reference of the certification to the serial number of the device.

  
  

The defence strategy

In opposition proceedings, it is not sufficient to generically challenge the fine or to claim that the speed camera "might" not be calibrated.

It is advisable to ask the administration to file:

• the homologation decree of the model used;

• certificate or attestation of conformity;

• identification documentation of the device, including the serial number;

• initial and periodic calibration certificates;

• records or reports of functional checks;

• documentation relating to installation and actual configuration;

• attestation of the qualification of the laboratory that carried out the calibration;

• documentation relating to maintenance and any interventions on the device.

The challenge must also be calibrated to the type of device: fixed speed camera, mobile device, laser speed gun, average speed detection system (Tutor or CVe) or other electronic equipment. For average speed detection systems, case law has extended the obligation of periodic checks in terms analogous to those of traditional speed cameras.

Particular attention must be paid to the date of the offence. The regularity of the device must be assessed in relation to the specific moment of the detection: a calibration certificate referring to a date after the detection, or dating back more than a year, does not prove the functionality of the device on the day of the violation.

Conclusions

The current approach tends to shift the centre of gravity of the litigation from the mere formal regularity of the report to the technical verifiability of the detection.

The administration cannot limit itself to asserting that the speed camera was in operation or that the report attested its regularity. In the presence of a specific challenge, it must prove by documents that the device was:

• homologated;

• conforming to the authorised model;

• correctly installed and configured;

• subject to periodic calibration;

• checked as to functionality and reliability.

Mere approval does not equate to homologation, and initial calibration does not replace periodic checks. The most recent case law — of the Court of Cassation and of the lower courts — has strengthened the role of the judge as the guarantor of a concrete verification of the reliability of the instrument, while the rules of Law-Decree No. 73/2025 have made the census of equipment in use publicly verifiable.