Italy's long-delayed speed camera decree has cleared the European Commission's technical review, yet the measure remains stalled before publication in the Official Gazette—prolonging a bureaucratic saga that began in April 2024 when the Cassazione declared thousands of fines issued by unapproved devices legally void. For residents, commuters, and local governments alike, the limbo means continued uncertainty over which speeding tickets are enforceable and which municipalities are sitting on uncollectible revenue.
Why This Matters
• Over 7,000 cameras remain in legal limbo: Only about 1,000 of the 11,000 speed cameras informally identified across Italy meet the new homologation criteria, leaving the majority vulnerable to court challenges.
• Automatic "forgiveness" for post-2017 devices: All units approved after August 2017 will be deemed homologated by decree—a retroactive move that lawyers warn may itself be unconstitutional.
• Pre-2017 cameras face mandatory technical testing: Older hardware must undergo fresh certification or be switched off; municipalities that skip the process risk a fresh wave of annulled fines.
• Publication date unknown: Despite the EU green light on May 4, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (MIT) has yet to schedule the decree's entry into force.
The Procedural Standstill
The MIT's draft regulation spent the past three months under Brussels' "TRIS" procedure, which requires member states to notify the European Commission of any new technical rules before they become law. That ninety-day comment window closed without objection on May 4, removing the final external hurdle. Yet the decree has not appeared in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, the official gazette that transforms draft text into binding law.
Consumer group Assoutenti condemned the delay in a statement this week, arguing that Italy's road-penalty system remains chaotic more than two years after the Supreme Court ruled that approval and homologation are distinct legal concepts. Without formal homologation—technical certification attesting that a camera meets all statutory requirements—a speeding fine is void, the court held.
What Homologation Means in Practice
The MIT's census platform, launched November 28, 2025, lists roughly 3,800 registered speed-camera installations out of an estimated 11,000 devices in operation. Of those registered, only 1,282 units are currently deemed compliant with homologation standards, according to a January 31, 2026 ministry update. The rest—more than 70% of surveyed equipment—fall short of the technical thresholds or lack proper documentation.
Under the pending decree:
• Post-2017 cameras gain automatic clearance: Any device approved under Ministerial Decree 282/2017 will be considered homologated by operation of law, sidestepping fresh testing.
• Pre-2017 units must prove compliance: Local authorities and manufacturers will need to submit prototype-level documentation; if they already possess the required certificates, a simplified fast-track procedure applies.
• Failed calibration equals shutdown: Periodic functional checks become mandatory; a camera that fails inspection must be disconnected immediately and cannot resume operation until it passes re-certification.
Councils will be able to cross-reference authorized models on the national portal velox.mit.gov.it/dispositivi, where make, model, and approval decree are searchable by the public.
The Constitutional Question Mark
Although the decree aims to close the legal gap, jurists warn that the blanket "healing" of post-2017 approvals may itself violate constitutional principles. Fabio Capraro, a leading administrative lawyer, argues that a ministerial order cannot retroactively convert administrative approval—permission to enter the market—into technical homologation, which requires field trials and prototype validation. "It is far too convenient to draft a rule with retrospective effect when the instruments were never homologated and remain unhomologated," Capraro told legal publications.
The consumer federation Globoconsumatori was blunter: "You cannot legalize what is illegal. A decree cannot substitute for primary legislation."
Another layer of complexity arises from the division of regulatory authority. Italy's Ministry of Enterprises and Made in Italy (MIMIT), not the MIT, traditionally holds competence over product homologation under national and EU metrology rules. Critics contend the Transport Ministry has overstepped its mandate, opening the door to further judicial review once the decree enters force.
How European Neighbors Handle the Problem
Several EU countries faced similar crises when courts questioned the legal basis for automated enforcement, yet most resolved the issue faster than Italy.
• Germany mandates regular calibration logs and requires that raw measurement data be stored and independently verifiable; a Constitutional Court ruling annulled fines when a device could not produce audit-ready records.
• Malta saw a wave of annulments until the Transport Authority assumed full regulatory oversight and partnered with the Malta Standards Authority to certify all devices under local and EU metrology law.
• France and the Netherlands assign liability to the vehicle owner rather than the driver, simplifying enforcement and reducing grounds for appeal tied to camera accuracy.
What unites these cases is clear legislative definition, transparent testing protocols, and unambiguous institutional responsibility—three elements Italy has struggled to codify.
Impact on Residents and Municipal Budgets
For drivers, the decree promises a centralized, searchable database of lawful speed cameras, making it easier to verify whether a fine was issued by certified equipment. Motorists who receive penalties from unlisted or pre-2017 devices may mount credible appeals, especially if the camera failed periodic verification.
Municipalities, meanwhile, face a fiscal squeeze. Towns that deployed older or uncertified hardware stand to lose significant fine revenue if required to deactivate cameras pending re-homologation. Some councils have already switched off devices preemptively; others are betting their legal teams can defend approvals as sufficient. The result is a patchwork of enforcement intensity across regions, with rural and smaller comuni disproportionately affected by the cost of compliance testing.
Timeline and Next Steps
With the TRIS standstill concluded, only a political decision stands between the decree and publication. The MIT has not indicated when the text will appear in the Gazzetta Ufficiale; industry observers expect publication before the summer recess, though delays into autumn cannot be ruled out.
Once in force, the decree will trigger:
A sixty-day window for municipalities and manufacturers to declare existing post-2017 cameras compliant.
Mandatory submission of technical dossiers for pre-2017 units, with simplified procedures for holders of legacy approval documentation.
Publication of an updated national registry distinguishing homologated from non-homologated installations.
Legal challenges are all but certain. Assoutenti president Gabriele Melluso warned that the decree "may not put an end to the all-Italian litigation over speed cameras," noting that the retroactivity clause and the jurisdictional question could fuel appeals throughout the summer and beyond.
What Residents Should Do Now
If you receive a speeding fine in the coming months, check the MIT's online registry to confirm the camera model and approval status. If the device is not listed or predates the 2017 technical standard, consider consulting a traffic lawyer before paying; courts in several districts have already granted automatic annulments in cases involving non-homologated equipment.
For those holding unresolved penalties from 2024 or early 2025, the decree may—or may not—retroactively validate the fines, depending on how judges interpret the "healing" provision. Until the Cassazione or a lower appellate chamber issues fresh guidance, the safest course is to preserve appeal deadlines and document any discrepancies between the fine notice and the national camera list.
Ultimately, the decree represents an attempt to regularize a system that operated for three decades without full legal foundation. Whether it succeeds will depend as much on judicial interpretation as on administrative diligence—and on how quickly the Gazzetta Ufficiale finally goes to press.
