Categories: Insights, Case Law


29 Nov 2016

Cameras that may supervise employees cannot be installed

Criminal Division III of the Supreme Court of Appeal, with ruling no. 45198 dated 26 October 2016, first reiterated that in accordance with clause 4 of the Workers’ Statute (prior to the Jobs Act) the use of remote control systems to monitor work is not permitted, and that such equipment may only be installed in the case of specific requirements and after complying with the procedures that ensure the protection of civil liberties set forth therein. According to the Supreme Court therefore, installation of audiovisual equipment that violate the privacy of workers without the consent of the trade union or an administration authorisation, constitutes a crime. In the case in question, this is a so-called crime of danger, whose scope is to protect workers from any possible violation of their privacy. In other words, to commit this crime it is sufficient to install equipment for the remote control of workers, even if the same are not actually used or activated. In other words, it is a crime to install cameras that may spy on employees, even if such cameras are not actually activated and used.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

12 Oct 2026

“AI tools, remote work and confidential data: employer liability in a borderless environment” – IBA Conference 2026

At the IBA Annual Conference 2026 in Copenhagen, our Managing Partner Vittorio De Luca moderated a panel on one of the most pressing challenges facing employers today: the…

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…