The Regional Administrative Court (i.e. “Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale,” or “TAR”) of Tuscany recently annulled the denial issued by the local labor inspectorate (i.e. “Ispettorato Territoriale del Lavoro” or “ITL”) concerning a company’s request to install additional surveillance cameras at the perimeter of its industrial site. The Court clarified that even outdoor areas where work activities occur only occasionally or intermittently still qualify as “workplaces” under Italian law.
The case
The case originated from a request submitted by a company to the competent ITL — as provided by Article 4 of the Italian Worker Statute (Law 300/70) — whereby the company approached the Public Administration after failing to reach an agreement with the corporate trade union representatives. Specifically, the company’s request outlined that, despite the presence of an existing surveillance system installed along the perimeter of the corporate premises, there was still a need to install an additional nine cameras. These cameras were to be placed in a peripheral area of the industrial facility to monitor the proper disposal of waste in designated unloading areas — areas that were also used by external parties — in order to prevent risks to worker safety, fire hazards, environmental damage, and to protect the company’s assets.
The ITL’s denial was based on its classification of the areas as “workplaces” and the perceived disproportion of the measure, which was deemed inappropriate in relation to the risks involved.
The Regional Administrative Court’s decision
The Court found the company’s appeal to be valid for the following reasons:
- Evidence in the case file showed that the areas where the company wanted to install the nine new cameras and for which the company sought authorization from the ITL were mainly frequented by external contractors, with employees only occasionally present (when performing specific tasks).
- Even outdoor areas where work activities are carried out only occasionally or intermittently must be considered “workplaces.”
- However, this fact alone was not sufficient to justify the denial, as per the relevant case law, which states that workers are not directly monitored, but are only within the scope of the camera’s field of view (see Italian Supreme Court, Civil ruling no. 3045/2025). The ITL had not established that the areas in question were habitually frequented by employees. On the contrary, according to the evidence provided by the claimant, these spaces were primarily used by external contractors, with employees only occasionally present.
- There was no indication that the ITL had carefully considered the company’s legitimate needs, which ranged from enhancing safety (including environmental safety) to safeguarding the integrity and appearance of the company’s assets.
- It was also not taken into account that the privacy of employees is reduced in areas where external parties are present (see Italian Supreme Court, Civil ruling no. 3045/2025), and the ITL overlooked the fact that the data storage period for the new cameras (72 hours) was shorter than the storage period for the existing system (96 hours), which was already authorized.
Other related insights:
