22 Dec 2021

It is unlawful to produce audio recordings made by third parties in Court (Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto – Il Sole 24 Ore, 22 December 2021 – Alberto De Luca, Valentino Biasi)

In its ruling no. 2286 of 3 December 2021, the Court of Venice, Civil Section II, ruled on the legitimacy of an audio recording made by a third party during a court case. Two of the three defendants in their proceedings against the same employer, had produced an audio recording of a work meeting held two years earlier in their absence which was made by a colleague.

The Court of Venice confirmed that the EU Regulation no. 2016/679 ( GDPR) had to be applied in order to settle the dispute, given that the audio recording (a) constitutes automated processing of personal data and (b) in this case it did not represent processing carried out by an individual for personal activities – which would have excluded the application of the above European legislation – since it was connected “to a commercial or professional activity” as provided for in Recital no. 18 of the GDPR.

Having established that the audio recording constituted a data processing operation under privacy legislation, the Court focused on verifying the legitimacy of such processing under Art. 5 of the GDPR, stating that the processing should have been carried out by the data subject to protect his position within the company and provide evidence. This is without prejudice to the relevance of the recording to the defence argument and that the information was not excessive for the relevant purposes which, as stated by the legitimacy case law (see Court of Cassation Civil Labour Section ruling no. 12534/2019). The data processing lawfulness is based on the existence of a legitimate and interest in determining or exercising one’s right, in the absence of which the processing must be deemed unlawful. A person who carried out the data processing must demonstrate the existence of a litigious background or injury suffered that has led them to undertake the processing to protect their legitimate and binding interest.

Continue reading the full version published in Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto of Il Sole 24 Ore.

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…