It was published last September 23, 2016 by the third civil section of the Supreme court, the judgment 18762/16 that dictates the elimination of architectural barriers by the atm, thus promoting the access to those who are on wheelchair. the All have the right to make withdrawals from an atm, or any other operation that requires that the account holder of any bank closer to the door, and this right should not be denied for any reason in the world, also those who are forced to live with a handicap, and that for various reasons are forced on the wheelchair, and the decision by the Supreme court, to hold all of the atm comes from an appeal by a man of Florence against the subsidiary Unicredit which was not supported by an adequate atm, the use of which the was in fact denied, prevented, by the barriers.
In accepting the appeal of the man of Florence here is that the Supreme Court has justified this decision in a ruling long 32 pages and, in particular, according to the judges "The accessibility to disabled persons is regulated by regulations of the state and a regional, precise and compulsory, that aims at the removal of everything that could hinder the access of a disabled person to public buildings and private ones, but open to the public".
Therefore to make sure that the atm service is both effective and available, and anyone who can benefit should be that public buildings but also private ones which cater for first thing in the removal of all architectural obstacles, and this, says the Supreme court in the judgment "must also occur in the absence of regulatory standards of detail and to dictate the technical characteristics which places, spaces, parts, equipment or components of a building or parts of this should have to ” allow access". In a first moment, the subsidiary Unicredit, the city of florence, against whom the man presented a petition he had obtained the favourable opinion of some judges who had examined the regional standards in the field of 'barriers is coming to see, through this analysis, the lack of implementing regulations but here is that the Supreme court has thought it a good idea to 'weed out' those decisions, go beyond what were the decisions taken by the judges of merit because, according to the Supreme court, in making such decisions was not reflected in the "protection against discrimination by clearing all the obstacles regardless of the existence of a norm regulating appropriate".
The trial judges must now deal with the disposal of atms, discriminatory and precise is the judgment, the trial judges will have to locate the "the technical criteria to be followed for such removal, making use also of the regulations that arose, if suitable for the purpose, being left to its discretion in the adoption of all other suitable measures, according to circumstances, to remove the effects of discrimination pursuant to law no.67 (2006).