Autoveloxko for many years to be stated that the tracking devices do not provide evidence of infringement, nor that the facts of the lazy, limitation, these devices into one picture that determines the offense when the vehicle is already far from the place of the violation, and having the sole purpose of identifying the data and identify the rightful owner who made payable to the minutes of the alleged infringement is not proven. In fact, a careful reading of Article 345 paragraph 1 of Reg.Esec. the Security Council and the Law 168/2002 Article 4, paragraph 3, it is clear that the photos must be that of the breach and performed perpendicular to the direction of travel of the vehicle to be his given full proof sull'effetività the vehicle and only he has interacted with the rays or magnetic detection, then a series of photos because s itself / and returns / no more highly-last frame identification data of the vehicle is registered, otherwise it is not clear because the law said including a video to replace the photos, you should only entrust the frame of the vehicle identification data, and who claims to have 2 frames, it is nothing more wrong because 2 frames are the so-called second click, or two negative and two photos with one click as at present, namely, an overview inquandrante throughout the vehicle, and another depicting the plaque that details of that picture.
is satisfied the prophecies of those who denigrated autoveloxko
Supreme Court Civil Section Two - Case No. 14514/2009
Civil Court of Cassation, Section Two - Case No. 14514 of 19/06/2009
Traffic - Article 142 of the Highway Code - Challenge of the violation deferred - On some streets the speed of the investigation may lawfully be made by electronic detection even in the absence of the operator and without the need of immediate objection, provided that the device used allows the complete photographic record of the event and must be given information to motorists. Only the requirement to comply with this obligation is to challenge the legality of the postponement.
FACT AND LAW
The Home Office has lodged an appeal in cassation against the decision of the justice of the peace mentioned in the headnote to Melfi that he had accepted the appeal lodged against the PN record high for violation of the breach of Article. SC 142, paragraph 8. Justices of the Peace
believed violated the provisions of Law No 168, 2002, Art. 4, paragraph 1 that, in the cases referred to therein, road users should be informed as to the installation of remote monitoring of speed without an immediate objection.
not worked as the defensive notice.
into action procedure under Art. 375 cod. proc. Civ., the Attorney General sent a written request that the action for manifestly well.
This request must be rejected, since the application as manifestly unfounded.
It should be considered in terms of court of cassation, the inadmissibility of pronunciation in closed session is apparent only when the Supreme Court believes that the assumptions are not met in art. Cpc 375, subsection 1, which reveal that conditions are incompatible with a short discussion, in which case the case must be postponed until the public hearing. If, however, the Court considers that the decision of the appeal of these aspects evidence compatible with the immediate decision, well may abandon the obvious merits appeal, even if the conclusions of PG have been opposed to the manifestly unfounded, and vice versa (Cass. 13748/20007). With
the only reason the appellant, alleging violation and misapplication of L. No 168, 2002, Art. 4, paragraph 1, argues that the information requirement is not a legitimate requirement of remote sensing of speed and therefore the context differs, but is required for security purposes.
On the other hand, Article. SC 201, paragraph 1 makes no reference to the obligation of prior notification.
The reason must be rejected.
The provision in the L. No 168, 2002, Art. 4, paragraph 1 should be interpreted in relation discipline of the immediate context, given the reference in Article. SC 201, paragraph 1, read. f): In some ways the question can legitimately be done with speed electronic detection even in the absence of the operator and without the need of the immediate context, long as the device used allows the complete photographic record of the event and is date information to motorists, since the reduction of verifiability and guarantees an immediate objection to road users made more urgent the sanctioned requirement of prior disclosure and transparency of the administration.
It follows that, according to Law No 168, 2002, Art. 4, paragraph 1, compliance with the obligation to give prior information is a precondition for the legality of the deferred complaint.
In the absence of prior information, the installation of devices for remote control of speed, the decision under appeal was right to annul the minutes of the breach.
The appeal is dismissed.
should not be taken any ruling regarding the regulation of expenditure on this phase, failing to notice the defense worked. PQM
The Court rejects the appeal.
RELEASE JUDGEMENT
by http://sites.google.com/site/
