Supreme Court: admissibility of hidden workplace surveillance cameras to verify employees’ unlawful conduct.

In ruling no. 28613 of 5 August 2025, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) held that the use of a hidden camera in the workplace, not signposted and installed without prior agreement with trade unions or authorization from the Labour Inspectorate, may be deemed lawful where it is intended to monitor the conduct of a specific employee against whom there are well-founded suspicions of unlawful acts detrimental to the company’s assets.

 

As a general rule, the Workers’ Statute (Law No. 300/1970) expressly prohibits the use of audiovisual equipment or any other devices designed for the remote monitoring of employees’ ordinary work performance. This prohibition remains subject to criminal sanctions under Article 171 of Legislative Decree No. 196/2003.

However, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that this prohibition does not extend to so-called defensive controls, which are not aimed at supervising the performance of work duties but at safeguarding the company’s assets. Accordingly, no violation of Article 4 of the Workers’ Statute occurs where surveillance systems are used to detect fraudulent conduct, provided that:

• the use of the equipment is strictly limited to the protection of corporate assets;

• it does not result in a generalized or ongoing monitoring of employees’ work performance;

• it is confined to situations where there are concrete suspicions of serious unlawful conduct.

In this context, the employee’s right to privacy must be balanced against the employer’s legitimate interest in protecting company property from theft or other unlawful acts. In such cases, the deployment of a concealed camera does not amount to a prohibited remote control of employees, but rather constitutes a means of evidence to establish unlawful activities committed within the workplace.

 

The ruling therefore confirms the Court’s consistent case law distinguishing between controls over work performance, which are always prohibited absent authorization or agreement, and defensive controls, which remain permissible insofar as they pursue the legitimate aim of protecting company assets and are not subject to an absolute evidentiary ban.