Categories: Insights, Practice

Tag: EDPB, Garante, Strumenti di controllo, videosorveglianza


5 Jan 2021

Video Surveillance: the new FAQ of the Data Protection Supervisory Authority

On 5 December last, the Data Protection Supervisory Authority (the “Authority”) developed FAQ (“Frequently Asked Questions”) on personal data processing carried out by public and private entities using video surveillance systems.

The Authority’s clarifications take account of what was introduced by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on personal data protection (known as “GDPR”) and by the Guidelines adopted by the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) on the point.

The FAQ clarify, firstly, that (i) processing carried out using video surveillance systems must be performed in respect of the principle of minimisation, in relation to the choice of recording methods and the positioning of the system, and (ii) the data processed must be pertinent and not excessive with respect to the purposes pursued.

Based upon the principle of accountability, it is the duty of each Controller to carry out assessments of the lawfulness and proportionality of processing, considering the context and respective purposes, as well as the risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects.

In the Authority’s opinion, each Controller must assess if the requirements are in place to carry out a data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”) before commencing the processing.

In relation to the privacy notice to be provided to the data subjects, the FAQ specify that the simplified model (warning sign), developed by the EDPB and disseminated with its Guidelines, may be adopted. The sign must contain (i) contact details of the Controller and, where present, Data Protection Officer (DPO); (ii) storage period of information collected and (iii) purposes of processing carried out. The sign must be positioned before the surveilled area, so that the data subjects can see which area is covered by a video camera, and must refer to a complete privacy notice containing all information indicated in Article 13 of the GDPR, including indications on the methods of acknowledgement.

The Authority also reiterates that the recorded images should be erased after a few days (24/48 hours) and that the longer the storage period, the more detailed the analysis on the legitimacy of the purpose and the actual need for longer storage must be.

Finally, it is noted that video surveillance systems can only be installed in workplaces for organisational and production requirements, for workplace safety and protection of company property, in respect of the guarantees envisaged by Article 4 of Italian Law no. 300/1970.

◊◊◊◊

In conclusion, the FAQ, available on the Authority’s website (www.garanteprivacy.it), contain indications on the necessary requirements in order for personal data processing carried out using video surveillance systems to be lawful.

The FAQ supersede, albeit partially, the previous “Measure on video surveillance dated 8 April 2010”, adjusting the provisions contained therein to what was introduced by the GDPR and by the EDPB Guidelines.

Other insights related:

EDPB: Preliminary version of Guidelines 3/2019 on video surveillance

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…