Categories: Insights, Case Law


29 May 2017

Installation of video cameras requires the union authorization or an administrative permit

The Court of Cassation, criminal division, with judgement No. 22148/2017, ruled once again on the possibility for the employer to install video cameras without implementing the union directive as per art. 4 of Law No. 300/70. In the case in hand, the Sole Director of a company decided to install at a local subsidiary a video surveillance system that consisted of two video cameras connected through the Wi-Fi and ADSL network to a monitor with which it was possible to monitor the work of employees. The Sole Director did not enter into a specific union agreement for it (nor he requested an administrative permit) but informed the employees about it and they authorized the monitoring performed by the employer. After the proceedings filed against the Sole Director, the latter was sentenced to pay a fine of 600 euro pursuant to article 38 of the Workers’ Charter. In particular, the Court of Cassation identified as unlawful the behaviour of the employer due to the fact that art. 4 of the Workers’ Charter has the goal of protecting a collective asset and not an individual one. For this reason, an employee, not having contractual authority equal to that of the employer, cannot authorize the latter to perform specific actions without prior authorization of the union representatives where expressly established by the law. Therefore, the Court of Cassation confirmed once again that the need to install equipment – whenever such equipment is installed to perform remote monitoring of the work activity – be preceded by an agreement between the employer and union representatives of the workers or, lacking an agreement, by a permit issued by an administrative authority. Otherwise the installation in question is unlawful and will give rise to criminal sanctions.

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…