Privacy and technology

Block of flats: not all unauthorised CCTV cameras give rise to a duty to pay compensation

It is for the judge to assess, in addition to psychological stress and anxiety, the injured party’s professional and social standing and the seriousness of the harmful act

by Annarita D'Ambrosio

18 August 2026

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Key points

The order to remove the unauthorised installation
How the electronic peephole works
When is the right to compensation triggered?
How can the seriousness of the incident be deduced?

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

CCTV cameras in blocks of flats must be positioned in a targeted and proportionate manner, avoiding any excessive filming. In the event of failure to comply with this criterion, non-pecuniary damage – even when resulting from the infringement of inviolable rights of the individual – must nevertheless be alleged and proven by the party claiming compensation, and such proof may also be provided by means of simple presumptions. This is clarified by the Court of Aversa, in the Caserta area, Section 2, in judgment no. 2616 of 19 July 2026.

The order to remove the unauthorised installation

The proceedings were initiated by a claim brought by a number of flat owners seeking the removal of private CCTV cameras on the grounds of invasion of privacy, and the removal and/or relocation of plant pots from the building’s communal stairwells on the grounds that they were taking up space and obstructing passage, all of which had been installed on landings and in communal areas, and they were seeking compensation for the resulting damage. They alleged breach of privacy due to filming directed towards the front door and the systematic monitoring of the areas in question. The compensation for damages also stemmed from the interim order issued in the proceedings under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which ordered the removal of the recording equipment.

The spouses, as owners of the plant, appeared in court, claiming that the claim was vexatious and constituting yet another episode of judicial persecution, forming part of a series of specious actions. They pointed out that the equipment had been removed, whilst the pots did not cause any obstruction. They therefore requested that the claim be dismissed and that the application to strike the matter from the record be granted.

Webcam in casa, quando è consentito averle (e usarle)

How the electronic peephole works

According to the court records, the issue of the filming also concerned a peephole (so-called ‘magic eye’) fitted to the entrance door of the property for the defendants’ exclusive use, which captures moving images and is also intended for video recording . As is well known, the functionality of these small devices is considerably more limited than that of a standard camera. In fact, they do not have controls to adjust their field of view in such a way as to capture images beyond the range of the fixed lens; as they are stationary devices, it is not possible to track the subject being recorded.

When is the right to compensation triggered?

The question, therefore, is: when is compensation due for an unauthorised CCTV camera? The Court of Cassation, in its judgement No. 5382 of 10 March 2026, refers to the established legal position according to which: ‘non-pecuniary damage, even when caused by the infringement of inviolable personal rights, is not automatic, but constitutes consequential damage, which must be alleged and proven by the party claiming compensation (Court of Cassation 21865/2013), evidence of which may also be provided by means of simple presumptions (Court of Cassation 7471/2012; Court of Cassation 24474/2014, Court of Cassation 16222/2015; Court of Cassation 30956/2017)’.

The case law of the Court of Cassation, therefore, clearly establishes that the mere presence of an illegally installed CCTV camera does not in itself entitle a person to financial compensation unless the adverse consequences suffered are proven. It is for the trial judge to assess the appropriateness of relying on presumptions and, consequently, to proceed with the equitable assessment of damages resulting from the injury to honour or reputation, demonstrating that they have taken into account all the facts established during the proceedings, for example, the professional and social standing of the injured party, the seriousness of the harmful act, and the extent to which the offence was publicised (Court of Cassation 10268/2002; Court of Cassation 9626/2003; similarly, Court of Cassation 20269/2024).

How can the seriousness of the incident be determined?

The negative consequences in terms of health include stress, psychological anxiety , and severe distress or a sense of oppression arising from the knowledge that one is constantly being watched or filmed within one’s private sphere. For compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by a breach of the right to privacy, it is, however, necessary for the offence to be serious. In order to assess the level of seriousness of the harm and the gravity of the damage, a balancing test must be carried out between the principle of solidarity with the victim and that of tolerance, with the result that compensation for non-pecuniary damage is due only where the threshold of tolerability has been exceeded and the harm is not trivial.