Many have been caught out once, if not twice, by Pisa’s poorly signposted honey-trap restricted traffic zone or ZTL/TZV.
Seeing as people seem to be having problems understanding just how to pay these fines, and the Pisa authorities are not helping matters since they have not yet got round to translating sections of their site into English. Really, they have no incentive to seeing as they are making a small fortune out of fining tourists. Please see update below.
IMPORTANT UPDATE 17 February 2010
Revised: 7 March 2010
Reader Peter has very kindly drawn my attention to the called EC -v- Italian Republic, case no C-224/00. The text of the case which is available in English and other European languages, can be seen here:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2002.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC) – Difference in treatment of persons contravening the highway code according to the place of registration of their vehicle – Proportionality.
In essence, it does look as though the fines European Union citizens have been receiving are, and always have been invalid.
Again, I would reiterate that I am not a lawyer, so I cannot be sure, but I would repeat Peter’s suggestion that if you are a European Union resident and you have received a fine more than 210 days after an offence, you should write back quoting case no C-224/00, and saying you will write to MEPs etc about this. If this does not get the Italian authorities off your back – then speak to a lawyer (class actions are possible in Italy now -and I know a good firm of lawyers too!).
In summary – if you received a fine for any motoring offence after 210 days, and you are an EU citizen, you may be able to refuse to pay on the basis of C-224/00.
And here is a comment from reader Pablo, dated 7 March 2010, which other people may find interesting:
Many posts above complain about the Italian authorities’ delay in notifying traffic penalties and their insistence on communicating in Italian. Fear not – the law is on your side, as I think both issues contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Part I Article 6:
“1 – In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2 – Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3 – Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.”
NOTE: This should not be confused with Article 6 of the EC Treaty referred to in Alex’s 17 Feb “Important Update” at the top of this blog.
Key words/phrases italicised above are “within a reasonable time”, “presumed innocent”, “promptly”, “in a language which he understands”, “in detail” and “free … interpreter”.
You must be told promptly of an accusation – presumably so you can recall the circumstances of the incident and collect any evidence you need while memories are still fresh. It follows that if you were not told promptly, then you have obviously been denied the opportunity of “a fair & public hearing within a reasonable time”. Thus it seems the Italian law allowing up to a year to tell you about an accusation is incompatible with the ECHR and is therefore invalid & unenforceable. As Mike, James & Peter have mentioned, a UK prosecuting authority must serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution within 2 weeks of an alleged traffic offence, and a penalty notice or court summons within 6 months. If the UK can do it, so could Italy – if it wanted to. You can form your own opinion of why Italian authorities delay sending a penalty notice for a year or more. My guess is it’s to reduce the likelihood of drivers remembering what happened or having kept car hire paperwork & hotel/restaurant/fuel/shopping receipts (to prove when & where you were) after such a long time. Depending on its timing and the extent of detail given, notification of a violation (such as an “amicable” EMO invitation to accept a fine) might satisfy the requirement to inform you promptly of an accusation. But the penalty notice sent by registered post is the important one, so if it arrives after 210 days you can reject it as denying you the option of a hearing “within a reasonable time”.
Regarding time limits, if you receive a penalty notice ask the car rental Co for a copy of documents showing when the police asked for the renter’s data and when they were given, so you can check whether the prescribed timescales were complied with and reject the penalty as out of time if they over-ran. If they claim they’re allowed 360 days remind them of European Court case C-224/00 (see Alex’s 17 Feb “Important Update”). Although that case concerned disparity in the treatment of drivers depending on where their cars were registered, it reinforced the principle in ECHR Pt.1 Art.14 that laws must not discriminate between nationalities. Thus you can reject any liability on the basis that the 360-day rule discriminates against non-Italians, so is incompatible with the ECHR and is therefore invalid & unenforceable.
You can insist on being told of the accusation in your own language, despite what Italian authorities might prefer. Again, an Italian law allowing authorities to demand communication in Italian is incompatible with the ECHR and is therefore invalid & unenforceable. It seems you are allowed 60 days from receiving a fine to pay up or appeal, so you could email or fax – in your own language – on the 59th day from receiving a penalty notice in Italian (or an incorrect own-language translation containing bad grammar or wrong spelling such as “Grait” Britain), saying you don’t understand it and ask for an accurate translation. Meanwhile the 210-day clock is still ticking, as the notice doesn’t count as served unless it’s “in a language which [you] understand”, and of course sent by registered post. If it contains any factual errors (name, time, date, location, car Reg.No, make, model etc) you can safely ignore it as it does not accurately describe the accusation and is thus unprovable – but don’t tell ‘em as they could re-issue a correct one within the 210-day period. The longer you spin out the arguments the more they would be likely to abandon the fine or run out of time. As Alex suggested, you could impose your own time-limit, such as “If I do not receive the information requested within 14 days I will assume you have (a) withdrawn all accusation/s, (b) cancelled all associated penalties & charges and (c) ceased all action/s”. With luck they won’t bother to provide a proper translation in time, or just give up. If they complain send them a copy of Article 6 – in English – with the relevant text highlighted (to be ultra-helpful you could also send the Italian version if you can find it).
Stop reading, start speaking
Stop translating in your head and start speaking Italian for real with the only audio course that prompt you to speak.
Another thing: in earlier posts Alex (and the Bella-Toscana link) suggested that Italian law assumes you are guilty until proved innocent. That too is incompatible with the ECHR, under which – as in most western-style democracies – the accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Thus an authority has no right to collect a penalty unless the accusation has been proved. Just saying you were seen in such a place at such a time does not prove you were. A photo of your car – or its number plate, or the driver, or the road – proves nothing without context such as time, date, place, nature of infringement and applicable law – including evidence that adequate signage was in place and operative (the international symbol of a red ring on a white background with a pictogram and/or text specifying the restriction). A close-up snap of a number plate without any verifiable context might lead a suspiciously-minded person to wonder if there could be an element of fakery involved, but of course I can’t imagine who could possibly be so uncharitable… Find the road in Google maps – there might be a “street view” showing if there were proper signs, properly positioned and visible. You could make their life more difficult by asking for proof – in your own language – that the recording equipment has been properly maintained, calibrated and tested, as we can in the UK for camera-related allegations. If the authority can’t prove the camera was working properly, who’s to say it recorded the correct time & date when the photo was taken or if a restriction actually applied when it was taken? Ask for the make & model of equipment and copies of certificates etc (translated to your language) showing this particular device has been certified & approved for this particular use; does it have a good or bad reliability history? You can probably think of a string of other things to slow up the process which you can keep trotting out, one after the other, until they get bored. If they don’t like it or won’t co-operate, tough – the greedy, profiteering scumbags shouldn’t try to rip off foreign tourists with unverified accusations. I certainly wouldn’t even think of using the appeals procedure, for which you have to deposit twice the initial fine! If they try to pursue you for non-payment, you’ll probably have a whole bunch of unanswered technical questions as your defence. The bottom line is, they must prove their case if asked.
EU member nations are legally bound to ensure their laws comply with the ECHR. Therefore I believe the above applies to all nationalities driving in Italy, not only EU citizens. National laws that don’t comply with EU legislation can be challenged in the European Court, as Alex pointed out in his 17 Feb “Important Update”. Italian cities probably issue several million of these fines every year (the Bella-Toscana article said 859,959 in Florence alone in 2008). If even only 10% were challenged it would clog the fines system to the extent it would be unworkable – and might even persuade city authorities to review their policy of killing off the tourist trade.
For those concerned at the legality of the above strategies, I must stress that none of them contravene any valid regulations or laws. On the contrary, they rely on applying the appropriate laws, though not necessarily those the Italian authorities would like. These arguments are equally valid if your own national traffic authority tries to collect under some sort of reciprocity agreement.
Like you Alex, I’m not a lawyer, just an ordinary bloke who can read & think, and I’ve no idea if any of this has been tested in court. If not, who’s first …?
End of 17 February 2o1o and March 7 2010 Updates
Reader Peter has very kindly drawn my attention to the called EC -v- Italian Republic, case no C-224/00. The text of the case which is available in English and other European languages, can be seen here:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2002.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC) – Difference in treatment of persons contravening the highway code according to the place of registration of their vehicle – Proportionality.
In essence, it does look as though the fines European Union citizens have been receiving are, and always have been invalid.
Again, I would reiterate that I am not a lawyer, so I cannot be sure, but I would repeat Peter’s suggestion that if you are a European Union resident and you have received a fine more than 210 days after an offence, you should write back quoting case no C-224/00, and saying you will write to MEPs etc about this. If this does not get the Italian authorities off your back – then speak to a lawyer (class actions are possible in Italy now -and I know a good firm of lawyers too!).
In summary – if you received a fine for any motoring offence after 210 days, and you are an EU citizen, you may be able to refuse to pay on the basis of C-224/00.
End of 17 February 2o1o Update
The (Much) Easier Way
The company which manages the collection of the Pisa fines is called S.E.Pi. and those who have been caught on camera can go to the S.E.Pi. collection agency site to see the photos mentioned in the fine notification.
Instructions below:
- Click here, or paste this url into your browser: https://secure.comune.pisa.it/tzv/Login.jsp
Then fill in this info:
- Numero verbale: ‘Offence number’ (solo il numero senza lettere) ‘(only the number without letters)’
- Anno: ‘Year’
- Targa: ‘Car Licence/Registration Plate number’
- Data violazione (gg/mm): ‘Date of violation day/month (dd/mm)’
…and you should see those incriminating photos. As a matter of interest, those who have waded through the complex system below might like to use this system to see if the same photos come up.
Try not to be put off by the fact that the S.E.Pi. site looks a little as though it was thrown together by a geeky teenager with a garish sense of colour. Although the site looks rather amateurish, it is official.
