Judgment No. 39550 of 2024: Illegal Interferences in Private Life and Consent in Surveillance
The recent judgment No. 39550 of September 25, 2024, filed on October 28, 2024, sheds new light on a crucial issue in criminal law: illegal interferences in private life. This ruling, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses the configurability of the crime defined by Article 615 bis of the Penal Code, with particular attention to the consent of the individual involved and the conditions under which such acts may be considered a crime.
The Legal Context
The crime of illegal interferences in private life is governed by Article 615 bis of the Penal Code, which punishes anyone who, through the use of visual or audio recording devices, violates another's privacy. The novelty introduced by the judgment in question lies in the specific condition in which the agent is also the owner of the domicile. In fact, the Court has established that the crime is configurably present even when the individual conducting the surveillance is the owner of the house from which they record, unless there is explicit or implicit consent from the person being recorded.
Crime of illegal interferences in private life - Use of visual or audio recording devices within the agent's residence - Configurability - Existence - Conditions. The crime of illegal interferences in private life is configurably present even when the agent is the owner or co-owner of the domicile, from where they capture images or record conversations related to the private life of another person who is present in the domicile, without the consent, whether expressed or implied, of that person.
Analysis of the Judgment
This passage of the judgment emphasizes the importance of consent in the capturing of images or sounds. Although the agent may have legitimate access to their own domicile, the lack of consent from the person inside renders their conduct criminally relevant. The Court has referred to previous jurisprudence, confirming an interpretative line aimed at protecting privacy, considered a fundamental right of the individual, even within the domestic environment.
- Importance of consent: recording without agreement is illegal.
- Protection of privacy: fundamental right protected by the Constitution and European regulations.
- Jurisprudential references: the Court has drawn on precedents to support its position.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment No. 39550 of 2024 represents an important clarification on the dynamics of the crime of illegal interferences in private life. The Court of Cassation reiterated that respect for privacy is a value to be protected, even in contexts where the agent may seem legitimized to act. It is essential for individuals to be aware of their rights and for the regulations governing privacy to be applied rigorously, to ensure a respectful and protected coexistence. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, but the protection of private life remains a cornerstone principle of our legal system.
