The use of geolocation tools may be considered lawful when the monitoring is targeted, proportionate, and aimed at verifying unlawful conduct.
With judgment no. 30821 of 24 November 2025, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, Labour Section, upheld the lawfulness of a dismissal for just cause imposed on an employee on the basis of evidence obtained from a GPS system installed in a company vehicle.
The Court reiterated that the use of geolocation tools may be considered lawful where the monitoring is targeted, proportionate, and aimed at ascertaining unlawful conduct, without amounting to a form of generalised surveillance of the performance of work duties.
The ruling fits within the framework of the well-established case law on defensive monitoring, further clarifying the scope of application of Article 4 of the Workers’ Statute and the conditions under which data collected through technological tools may be used for disciplinary purposes.
The case at hand
The case originated from a dismissal for just cause imposed by a company on an employee engaged in a security guard service, carried out with the use of a company vehicle equipped with a satellite tracking system.
Following reports from clients regarding service deficiencies, the company initiated a series of internal checks aimed at reconstructing the manner in which the work activity was carried out during the guard shifts. These checks focused on the analysis of the geolocation data of the company vehicle, in order to verify the consistency between what the employee had reported in the service logs and what emerged from the GPS records.
The data showed that, on three separate occasions, during working hours, the employee had stopped the vehicle and remained inside it for a significant period of time. This circumstance was inconsistent with the information provided in the service reports, in which the employee had stated that, during the same time slots, he had travelled to locations different from those actually indicated by the satellite tracking data.
On the basis of these findings, the company proceeded with a disciplinary charge, considering that the employee’s conduct was not consistent with the operational requirements of the security service and constituted a breach of contractual obligations.
Moreover, the irregularities detected did not represent an isolated episode, but rather formed part of a repeated pattern of conduct, which had already been the subject of previous disciplinary measures resulting in conservative sanctions. In light of the seriousness and recurrence of the conduct, the employer therefore proceeded with the dismissal for just cause.
The decision of the Court of Appeal
The employee challenged the dismissal, arguing, inter alia, the unlawfulness of the monitoring carried out through the GPS system and the inadmissibility of the related data for disciplinary purposes, alleging a breach of Article 4 of Law No. 300/1970 (Workers’ Statute).
The Court of Appeal, seized of the dispute, dismissed the challenge, holding the dismissal to be lawful. In particular, the appellate judges classified the checks carried out by the company as defensive monitoring, as they were aimed at ascertaining potentially unlawful conduct detrimental to the company’s organisation, which had emerged following specific complaints from clients.
According to the appellate court, those checks did not amount to surveillance of the ordinary performance of work duties, but rather responded to the need to verify a possible breach of the duties of fairness and loyalty incumbent upon the employee. Consequently, the monitoring was deemed to fall outside the scope of application of Article 4 of the Workers’ Statute.
From a substantive standpoint, the Court of Appeal also noted that the conduct ascertained was such as to significantly undermine the fiduciary relationship, particularly in light of the repeated nature of the behaviour and the prior disciplinary sanctions already imposed on the employee.
The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation
The employee lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court of Cassation against the second-instance decision, arguing, among other grounds, the unlawfulness of the GPS-based monitoring and the erroneous classification of such checks as defensive monitoring.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, fully upholding the contested decision. The Court reiterated that an employer may lawfully make use of technological tools, such as geolocation systems installed in company vehicles, where the monitoring is targeted, proportionate, and justified by the need to verify conduct that goes beyond the mere supervision of the performance of work duties.
According to the Supreme Court, in such circumstances the monitoring assumes a defensive nature and is aimed at ascertaining potentially unlawful conduct, with the consequence that the resulting data may be legitimately used for disciplinary purposes.
The Court further clarified that the assessment of whether the monitoring is aimed at detecting unlawful conduct, rather than at supervising work performance, constitutes a finding of fact reserved to the trial court. Such an assessment cannot be reviewed at the legitimacy stage, provided it is supported by a coherent and logically structured reasoning.
In the case at hand, the appellate court had found that the use of GPS data was prompted by specific reports of service deficiencies, that the checks were limited to defined time periods, and that the employee’s conduct was incompatible with the duties of fairness and loyalty, significantly affecting the fiduciary relationship.
The principle affirmed
Judgment no. 30821/2025 reaffirms the principle that data obtained from GPS systems installed in company vehicles may lawfully form the basis for a dismissal for just cause where the monitoring is attributable to defensive purposes and is functional to ascertaining conduct that breaches contractual obligations.
Continue reading the full version published on Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto de Il Sole 24 Ore.
