What rules to the installation of surveillance cameras in the building? January 3, 2013 Supreme Court judgment no. 71
The increase of fear for their own personal safety and increased instances of protection, even from damage, property own, is the increase in the demand for means of protection and prevention. Among the various means of protecting an important role (for low cost of installation and maintenance and high deterrence) is carried out by the cameras of "surveillance" used as a passive instrument to deter evil-minded persons.
This, however, does not mean that problems will arise "collateral" to install, even if these cameras are installed in an apartment building by a single owner and / or the building as a common good art. 1117 of the Civil Code give rise to many problems.
The issues related to the installation of video surveillance systems in a building are (essentially) of two types: the first is related to the right to privacy and the protection of the legal aspect, the second is linked to the need to reconcile the legislation codicistica the apartment block with this new instrument. Here we are concerned about the appearance statements (in the strict sense) of the problem ignoring all the problems concerning the so-called privacy and the protection of confidentiality (from the obligation to appoint a controller of the images, the obligation to indicate the presence of such video tools etc. ..).
The affixing of cameras, however, must be analyzed from different angles of views: based on the different subject carrying out the construction of the plant. In fact, you can immediately detect that if these tools are installed by the individual owner (they are good in the exclusive properties and condominium are not good art. 1,117 cc), on the contrary, if the system is realized by the condominium (in the person of pt after the decision of the meeting) are good communal art. 1117 of the Civil Code
Based on the assumption that the installation of video surveillance is a private good and, therefore, is installed by one of the owners (for example in defense of his apartment), if there are no major problems (at least for accounting purposes) this plant is affixed inside the private property of the individual owner and "framing" (monitor) exclusively private property.
The issue tends to get complicated when the private install the cameras on common shares pursuant to art. 1117 cc, although the end is just to protect private property, is the classic example of the cameras affixed to the landing (near the front door of one of the apartments) of one of the floors of a condominium building (of course, assuming that this camera does not need to "spy" on the comings and goings of people on plan and do not need to "spy" on the close, but is used to monitor the entrance of the exclusive owner). In these cases, the legitimacy of the individual owner to install cameras on a landing condominium is derived from the provisions of art. 1102 of the Civil Code according to which "Each participant can use the common thing, provided it does not alter its destination and does not prevent the other participants to make also use according to their law." Excluding the cameras may have an impact on the decoration of the building (because they are either low-impact architectural and / or are well camouflaged) and excluding probremi arising from the right to privacy, it follows that hardly any dispute will be directed to the individual owner.
It is a different problem with the affixing of surveillance cameras made dall'ammnistratore of conodominio after deliberation by the shareholders as well (plant) common art. 1117 of the Civil Code On this point it is appropriate to distinguish between the views accrued prior to the reform of the building and it features the new rules of the condominium that will be active from June 2013.
The code of 1942 did not regulate the installation of surveillance cameras in order to (especially because the technology did not exist in 1942) when, recently, have spread these types of facilities such as protection technique, the reconstruction of the phenomenon have been legal broadly twofold: a) to create a new system of video surveillance is part of the innovations, which may be adopted by a majority (though qualified), b) the decision to install a video surveillance system requires the consent of the building of all owners (and not only those present at the meeting and no majority is sufficient for innovations) as it affects the (limited) The right to confidentiality and / or privacy, therefore, in the absence of the consent of all the owners 'assembly would not even entitled to decide, since the appearance of the limitation of the right to personal privacy does not fall under the competence of the Assembly. Without considering the criminal aspect of the matter, in fact, the attachment of cameras may infringe Article. 615 bis. pen. "Illegal interference in private life."
Today, after the reform of the building, many of these objections are overcome because the art. 1122-ter of the Civil Code categorized as "Video surveillance systems on the common parts" expressly provides that "The resolutions concerning the installation on the common parts of the building of facilities designed to enable video surveillance on them are approved by a majority of the second paragraph of 'Article 1136. " From the new article we deduce that
- The installation of a plant divideo surveillance is not considered by the legislator an innovation (or is an innovation, but that can be decided by a majority lowest equal to half the value of the building)
- The Assembly is competent and entitled to decide
- There is (in theory) no significant criminal and / or breach of confidentiality
Civil Cassation. section II, of January 3, 2013 71.
4.3. In the present case the applicant, with the first reason, while making reference to a general principle of our legal system in terms of expenses, has in practice complained of in this respect the only violation of the rule in art. 1134 cod. civ., complaining of non-recurrence, in this case, the conditions for the anticipation and reimbursement of expenses, without even figure out how the rule of fairness identified by Justice of the Peace is in conflict with that principle, nor moreover attach - as was his burden - that the alleged principle derived art. 1134 cod. civ. is also a guiding principle of the matter nor be annexed even invoked in relation to the principle of the protection of confidentiality and privacy (see Cass. 29 April 2010, n. 10371 Cass. Jun. 22, 2005, no. 13377, Cass., ord . Apr. 15, 2005, n. 7872). To the above should be added that, according to the constant guidance of this Court, there are no extremes acts to integrate the crime of unlawful interference in private life (Article 615 bis. Pen.) In the case where a subject performs filming of ' communal area for parking and its input, since the places intended for use by an undetermined number of people and, therefore, excluded from protection under Article. 615 bis. pen., which concerns, whether it is of "domicile" and "private residence" or "belonging to them" a particular subject's relation to the environment in which he lives his private life, so as to reduce to external interference regardless of its presence (see Cass., pen., 29 October 2008, n. 44701).
25/01/2013
----------------------------------------
Translated via software
----------------------------------------
Source:
Italian version of CercaGeometra.it