Speed Camera Fines in Italy: The 2026 Autovelox Reform (Multa Autovelox)

Italy's most common speed camera question is not what the fine costs. It is whether the device that recorded the reading was legally entitled to do so. As of 12 July 2026, that question has a new answer: the Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti has, for the first time, set a single organic regime for approving, calibrating, and periodically checking speed-detection devices under article 142 of the Codice della Strada, replacing the framework in place since 2017.

This page covers what an autovelox fine actually costs, what the 2026 reform changes about the device itself, and the distinction the Corte di Cassazione has been refining since 2024, between a camera that is merely «approvata» and one that is «omologata». Both matter for the same reason: a challenge to a speed camera fine succeeds or fails on the paperwork behind the device, not on the strength of an argument.

Information verified on 21 July 2026. This page provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice for an individual situation.

The 2026 reform: what actually changed on 12 July

For years, Italian speed cameras operated under two administrative statuses that courts eventually treated as legally distinct. A device could be «approvato» (approved), a lighter procedure confirming a prototype meets basic technical specifications, or «omologato» (homologated), a stricter procedure that the Corte di Cassazione has held is what art. 142, comma 6 actually requires. A meaningful share of the cameras in service around Italy carried only the lighter approval.

The D.M. MIT dell'8 giugno 2026, published in Gazzetta Ufficiale Serie Generale n. 159 dell'11 luglio 2026 and in force from the following day, replaces the 2017 framework with a single regulation covering the characteristics, requirements, and procedures for homologation, calibration (taratura), and periodic functional verification (verifica di funzionalità) of every device used to detect an art. 142 speed violation. It also establishes a transitional regime for devices already in service under the old approval-only status, giving them a defined path toward homologation rather than an automatic invalidation of every reading they take.

Press reporting citing ANSA has put the scale of the transition at roughly 850 devices needing re-homologation against roughly 3.150 already compliant. That figure comes from wire-service reporting, not the decree's own text, so treat it as an approximate order of magnitude rather than an official count.

Approvazione versus omologazione: what two Cassazione rulings decided

The distinction is not new law created by the 2026 decree. It comes from how the Corte di Cassazione has read art. 142, comma 6, which requires that speed be proven using «apparecchiature debitamente omologate», duly homologated equipment. In Cass. civ., ord. n. 10505/2024 (19 aprile 2024), the Court held that the simplified approval procedure is not the technical, prototype-testing procedure the statute calls homologation, and that a fine resting solely on an approved-but-not-homologated device is not properly supported.

That line did not settle every later case the same way. In Cass. civ., Sez. II, ord. n. 7374/2026 (27 marzo 2026), the Court restated that the administration must positively prove the initial omologazione of the device and its periodic taratura. Approval alone does not discharge that burden, and neither does a calibration record standing on its own. Commentary describes the 2026 ordinance as clarifying rather than reversing the 2024 line: homologation remains the statutory standard, but where an administration documents both approval and a current calibration and functional-verification record, a generic objection that paperwork is incomplete is not, by itself, enough to unwind a fine.

Both rulings are cited here by court, section, date, and number rather than quoted verbatim; the Corte di Cassazione's own case database restricts automated access to the full text of its decisions.

What an art. 142 fine actually costs

A repeat 40-to-60 km/h violation within two years extends the suspension to 8 to 18 months. A repeat over-60 km/h violation within two years results in revoca, permanent loss requiring a fresh application, rather than a further suspension, under art. 142, comma 12. A violation between 20:00 and 07:00 in either the 10-to-40 or 40-to-60 km/h band adds a further flat €200 to the fine, destined to a dedicated road-safety fund. Certain heavier vehicles listed in comma 3, among them goods vehicles over 3,5 t, buses, and agricultural machinery, have both the pecuniary and accessory sanctions doubled under comma 11.

These figures are the amounts in force on the verification date above. The biennial ISTAT indexation that ordinarily updates Codice della Strada fines has been suspended, and the suspension repeatedly extended, since 2023. It is currently due to lapse from 1 December 2026, at which point an adjustment reflecting the accumulated inflation is expected to apply, so a reader checking this page later should confirm the figures have not changed.

Reading your own verbale before deciding anything

The statute gives a reader several things to check before deciding whether a challenge is worth pursuing, beyond the approvazione and omologazione question above. Art. 142, comma 6-bis requires that a fixed speed-control point be signposted in advance and clearly visible. A control point that was not properly signposted is a separate ground of challenge from the homologation question, and it applies regardless of the device's own paperwork.

An automatic device operating without an officer physically present must, under art. 201, comma 1-quater, still be managed directly by the traffic police body responsible for it, and outside built-up areas it may only be installed on road sections the prefetto has specifically designated. The approval and homologation status of the device model, and the date of its most recent taratura, are facts the enforcing authority must be able to produce; a driver cannot verify either from the verbale alone and generally needs to request the underlying documentation as part of a formal challenge.

A separate, longstanding practice is a measurement-tolerance deduction applied before a violation is charged at all, commonly described as 5 km/h up to a reading of 100 km/h and 5 percent above it. That traces to older ministerial guidance for the previous generation of devices; this session could not re-open that earlier text directly, so treat the figure as a widely reported enforcement practice rather than a primary-verified feature of the 2026 decree.

Three scenarios

A driver in a 50 km/h zone inside a built-up area is recorded at 61 km/h, an excess of 11 km/h, by a fixed and properly signposted camera, with no prior violation in the past year. This falls in the 10 to 40 km/h band: a fine between €173 and €694, 3 points deducted under art. 126-bis, and no licence suspension. Because no suspension attaches, the 30 percent discount under art. 202 is available if paid within 5 days. Paying the minimo of €173 within 60 days but after the fifth day forfeits the discount, though the amount stays capped at the minimo.

A driver is recorded doing 176 km/h on a motorway where 130 km/h applies, an excess of 46 km/h. This falls in the 40 to 60 km/h band: €543 to €2.170, a suspension of 1 to 3 months, and 6 points deducted. Because a suspension attaches, art. 202 excludes the 30 percent discount entirely, whether paid on day one or day sixty; the amount due is the minimo of €543 regardless. A second such violation within two years would extend the suspension to 8 to 18 months.

A driver is recorded at 195 km/h against a 130 km/h limit, an excess of over 60 km/h, by a fixed device that turns out to have been only «approvata» before the 12 July 2026 reform, with no homologation certificate on file. This falls in the highest band: €845 to €3.382, a suspension of 6 to 12 months, and 10 points deducted. The approvazione-versus-omologazione line from Cass. n. 10505/2024 is a real ground to raise, but Cass. n. 7374/2026 means it is not automatically decisive: the administration still has to show the device was homologated, not merely approved, and that it was calibrated in the relevant period. A taratura record on its own does not cure a missing homologation.

For the points table, see Italy's driving licence points system. For the mechanics of filing a challenge, see contesting a traffic fine in Italy; for what happens to a licence during a suspension, see licence suspension in Italy. For the full index, see the driving laws section or the Italy hub.