Categories: Insights, Practice


26 Feb 2017

Massive, prolonged and indiscriminate monitoring on computer tools provided to employees are forbidden

With measure no. 547 dated 22 December 2016 and published in the newsletter of 17 February 2017, the Privacy Authority for the protection of personal data reaffirmed that an employer cannot access indiscriminately emails or personal data contained in the devices provided to employees. According to the Privacy Authority, the employer, in spite of having the right to check the proper performance of the service and the correct use of the work tools by the employee, must in any case safeguard personal freedom and dignity, complying with legal regulations. The labour regulations on remote monitoring (in this case under article 4 of the Worker’s Statute in its “new formulation” after the Jobs Act), moreover establishes that it is unlawful to carry out activities suitable to achieve, even indirectly, a massive, prolonged and indiscriminate monitoring of the employee’s performance. And in any case, the Privacy Authority reaffirms that employees must always be informed clearly and in a detailed manner about the methods of use of the tools in question and about any monitoring activities. This is because the absence of an explicit policy in this regard may lead to a legitimate expectation by the employee (or a third party) of the confidentiality of certain forms of communication.

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

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…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…