Condominium video surveillance and privacy

The assembly resolution: majority and minimum content

Article 1122 ter of the Italian Civil Code, introduced by the condominium reform, requires that the installation of video surveillance systems on shared areas be resolved by the assembly with the majority of attendees representing at least half the value of the building, the same majority set out in article 1136, second paragraph, for the most significant decisions on shared areas. An informal agreement among neighbors, or a single resident acting on their own initiative even in good faith, is not enough: cameras pointed at shared areas such as the entrance hall, courtyard, stairwell or condominium parking require a valid resolution, minuted, that clearly states what is being installed and where.

The resolution should specify the location of the cameras, the actual area covered (avoiding footage of private dwellings, other residents balconies, or the public street beyond what is necessary), the purpose of the processing, typically security and protection of shared property, and who will be designated as the point of contact for managing the system. A generic agenda item such as condominium video surveillance is open to challenge: it is preferable to attach a technical estimate with the planned camera layout to the meeting notice itself.

GDPR: data controller, purpose and legal basis

Footage collected by a surveillance system is personal data in every respect, and the condominium, through the administrator if one is appointed, or a designated resident, takes on the role of data controller under the GDPR. This creates an obligation to identify a legitimate and specific purpose, typically the protection of security and shared property, and to limit collection to what is strictly necessary for that purpose under the data minimization principle.

It is good practice for the resolution to also identify the legal basis of the processing, generally the legitimate interest of the condominium in the security of shared areas, and for a risk assessment, even a brief one, to be drawn up covering the rights of residents and third parties who pass through the filmed areas. Cameras cannot be oriented to systematically capture the interior of individual units or adjoining private spaces, nor used for purposes other than the one declared, such as monitoring residents entry and exit times.

Notice signs and transparency toward residents and visitors

Anyone entering the monitored areas, a resident, a family member, a guest, a courier or a contractor, must be informed of the presence of the cameras before entering their field of view. This is achieved through visible signs placed near entrances and filmed zones, with a simplified notice indicating at least the data controller, the purpose of the processing, and a reference to a fuller notice, for example posted on the notice board or available on request, covering retention and data subject rights.

Transparency is not a bureaucratic formality: it is the condition that makes it lawful to film people passing through shared areas. Missing signs, or generic signs that do not reflect where the cameras are actually located, are among the most common non-compliance issues found in condominiums.

Footage retention and access to recordings

The storage limitation principle requires that footage is not kept longer than necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was collected: for the security of shared areas this is typically a short period, except where a specific segment must be kept for a documented event, such as a reported theft, for as long as needed for verification or ongoing proceedings.

Access to recordings must be restricted to a small number of identified individuals, generally the administrator or the person designated by the resolution, and every access should be logged: who accessed the footage, when and why. Handing footage over to law enforcement happens on formal request as part of proceedings, not on spontaneous general initiative toward third parties. An individual resident has no right to demand to view recordings outside the procedures set by the resolution.

• Camera location and purpose fixed by the assembly resolution
• Visible notice signs before the filmed area
• Retention periods limited to the security purpose
• A restricted, logged list of who can access recordings
• Handover to authorities only on formal request within proceedings

Administrator liability and the role of management software

The administrator, when designated as the point of contact for processing by the resolution, is responsible for the correct management of the system: checking that signs are present and up to date, that access to footage is limited to authorized individuals, that recordings do not exceed the set retention period, and that any access requests from data subjects or authorities follow the correct procedure. In case of violations, liability can fall on the condominium as data controller and, for the managerial part within their responsibility, on the administrator.

Management software such as AmministraPro does not replace the assembly's substantive decisions, but helps keep documentation in order: the minutes of the installation resolution, the list of individuals authorized to access footage, and retention deadlines, so that in case of an inspection or a dispute the administrator can show that the system was installed and managed following the correct procedure.

Frequently asked questions