News Supreme Court rulings January 2013

Even when stopping the vehicle is impossible, the ticket is still legitimate.
The United Sections of the Supreme Court in ruling number 3936 of March 13, 2012, affirmed that following the ascertained exceeding of speed limits by means of the mobile speed camera, deferred contestation of inflation is permissible, as it is not necessary to stop the vehicle since the notification of the report is sufficient.
In the present case, the motorist, disputed the possibility for the detecting officers to be able to use electronic speed detection instruments on the road on which the offense took place, since, on that road, due to its type, pursuant to Decree Law no. 121 of 2002, the use of said equipment is not allowed.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the inability to stop the vehicle, for the purpose of immediate challenge, due to the fact that it might constitute a reason for obstructing traffic or endangering people, makes the report as well as the related penalty legitimate. Finally, the Supreme Court makes it clear that no rule obliges the administration to use multiple patrols in order to ensure immediate detection of speed limit violations.

Guaranteed entry into the church without having to ring the bell.
In ruling number 21129/2012, the Supreme Court of Cassation, ruled that it is not possible to prevent or make it uncomfortable for the faithful or the pastor himself to enter any place of worship.
In the present case, the Vesuvius Observatory, was being authorized to place a gate on the access road to the same to prevent the occurrence of vandalism. However, the Observatory’s property bordered a small church, and the aforementioned gate, built in the churchyard, obstructed the passage of the faithful and the parish priest. The latter, in order to enter, must ring the bell and identify themselves: the only way to get to the church is to pass through the aforementioned street.The Supreme Court, in the judgment cited above, makes it clear that the custodians of the Observatory, by monitoring access by the faithful and the pastor to the church, are in fact controlling the exercise of a constitutional freedom.

The amount of the allowance increases, as the age of the offspring increases.
The Supreme Court of Cassation ( ruling number 8927/2012 ) confirmed its previous guidance that as the needs of the offspring increase due to their growth, an increase in the amount of child support is legitimate. The above, also in view of the increase in child support costs due to the child’s growth. In the present case, the former spouse requested and obtained a revision of the maintenance allowance with a consequent increase in the amount of the same.
In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that children’s needs related to the development of their personalities are notoriously linked to their growth. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, it is absolutely legitimate to revise the allowance, even in the absence of an increase in the financial conditions of the parent required to contribute.