A justice of the peace of Florence accepted an appeal promoted by the consumer association Aduc, against the serial fines from speed cameras and entrances to Ztl and badly marked preferential lanesestablishing that the contested minutes must be annulled except for «the first in order of time». The question of the continuous journeys by committing the same transgression has emerged, with controversy, in Florence given that the Municipality, says Aduc, «commits, notifying them only after the expiry of the legal term of 90 days. In 2022, these types of fines reached more than 400,000 people, an increase of 620% compared to a year ago. Notification months after the offence, albeit legitimate, prevents the driver from promptly realizing it and immediately interrupting the offences. Result: a barrage of fines to bankrupt people and families who in most cases passed and repassed from there to go to work and who, if warned in time, would never have continued to do so”.

Aduc explains that the “error of perception by the driver is transformed into an overall fine that can reach several thousand euros, with dozens of points deducted from the licence” and advised the unfortunate to appeal to the justice of the peace even if there is no it is a specific provision of the Highway Code but in these cases ask for a judgment of fairness, perhaps by paying a single fine and any notification costs”. The justice of the peace Sonia Salerno of Florence justified the reasons of the appellant stating in the sentence that «the infringements were not immediately contested and the appellant therefore realized that he had committed an infringement only after having received notification of all the infringements committed in the months from January to May 2022. Therefore, although the notifications were timely pursuant to art. 201 Cds, in this way the educational function of the sanction was not exercised but rather the punitive one. It follows that the contested reports must be annulled with the exception of the first in order of time, with the appellant being ordered to pay the costs of serving all the assessment reports”.