News Supreme Court rulings July 2018

Refusal of the request to disclose personal and driver’s license data Article 126 bis C.d.S.

According to the Judgment of the Civil Cassation, Sec. II, Ord., 18-04-2018, No. 9555, For the purposes of the application of Article 126 bis of the Highway Code, a distinction must be made between the conduct of a person who disregards the request to disclose the driver’s personal and driver’s license data, thus not complying in any way with the invitation addressed to him, and the conduct of a person who has provided a statement of negative content, based on justifications.

In the latter case, the suitability of the declarations to exclude the relative presumption of liability on the part of the declarant must be screened by the common judge, on a case-by-case basis, also in light of the characteristics of the individual concrete cases submitted to his judgment, with an appreciation of fact that cannot be reviewed in the court of legitimacy.

Speed limit violation: how to place signage?

The Supreme Civil Cassation, Sec. I, Ord, 09.10.2017, No. 23566 ruled on the subject of ascertainment of violations of the rules on speed limits, carried out by means of devices or technical means of control, that the sign warning of the presence of the detection station must be affixed in such a way as to ensure its correct perceptibility and legibility, Presidential Decree No. 495 of 1992, ex Article 79, paragraph 5, so that the ascertainment carried out by means of photodetection occurred before (in this case, more than two hundred meters away) of the mobile warning sign is illegitimate.

Blood collection: no requirement to give notice of the right to be assisted by a defense counsel

On the subject of drunk driving, Cass. civ. Sec. VI – 2, Ord., 24-02-2014, No. 4405 decided that the blood sampling performed as part of the execution of ordinary first aid protocols outside the emergence of crime figures and activities preparatory to their investigation does not fall within the scope of the acts referred to in Article 356 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so that there is no obligation to notify, pursuant to Article 114 disp. att. c.p.p., the suspect of the right to be assisted by a trusted defense counsel.

In fact, according to the Court of legitimacy, the results of the blood sample taken for first aid treatment following a traffic accident and not preordained for the purpose of proving criminal liability are usable for the purpose of establishing the crime of driving under the influence, without regard to the lack of consent of the person concerned.