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

3 Aug 2026

Pay Transparency: the first requests from employees are starting to arrive (Il Sole 24 Ore, 3 august 2026 – Vittorio De Luca)

Two months after the decree. Since Legislative Decree 96/2026 came into force on 7 June, according to a flash survey conducted by GIDP, 8% of HR directors have…

30 Jul 2026

Corporate controls and data protection: what balance?

A recent judgment of the Court of Pisa, No. 800 of 13 June 2026, addresses a topic of particular interest for companies: the delicate balance between the protection…

30 Jul 2026

Unfair dismissal and reinstatement: the employee must repay the payment in lieu of notice

With order no. 22187 of 28 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether payment in lieu of notice paid to an employee must be…

30 Jul 2026

Did you know that… an employee’s natural incapacity does not prevent the time limit for challenging a dismissal from running?

In judgment no. 23486 of 18 July 2026, the Joint Chambers of the Italian Supreme Court (i.e. “Corte di Cassazione”) held that the natural incapacity of an employee…

22 Jul 2026

An employee may not steer clients toward a competitor before resigning (Camera di Commercio Francese in Italia, 22 July 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 1723 of 26 May 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) confirmed the liability of an employee who, prior to the termination of his…

20 Jul 2026

Access to Naspi (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 20 July 2026 – Vittorio De Luca e Alessandra Zilla)

Regulatory Framework  The New Social Insurance for Employment (NASpI), introduced by Legislative Decree No. 22 of 4 March 2015, is the primary income support scheme for employees who…