All news
Enforcement October 8, 2026 5 min

Italian DPA fines the municipality of Arvier €4,000: a camera filmed a resident's windows and balconies, and the masking came too late

Several purposes without a legal basis, generic signs, an inadequate DPIA and privacy masking added only after the investigation began. Decision no. 636 of 23 September 2026

TL;DR

With decision no. 636 of 23 September 2026, announced on 8 October, the Italian Garante fined the municipality of Arvier (Aosta Valley, about 800 inhabitants) €4,000. The system, active since 2011-2012 and later extended, served several purposes without a clear legal basis; one camera filmed the façade, windows and balconies of a private home; masking was added only after the investigation started; signs and the DPIA were inadequate. The municipality must now put the whole system in order.

The facts

The case began with a complaint from a resident: a municipal camera had a field of view that also covered her home. The inquiry found a system used for traffic and parking control, number-plate reading, environmental protection and civil protection, without the municipality having identified a clear and adequate legal basis for each purpose.

The infringements

  • LEGAL BASIS. Several overlapping purposes, with no legal basis precisely identified for each.
  • PROPORTIONALITY. Filming the façade, windows and balconies was not necessary for the stated purposes: a disproportionate intrusion into private life.
  • PRIVACY BY DESIGN. The 'privacy masking' introduced after the investigation began is not enough: it should have been built in from the design and first configuration of the system.
  • TRANSPARENCY. The signs referred generically to 'security', without the information required by the GDPR.
  • DPIA. The impact assessment drawn up by the municipality was found insufficient.

Masking is designed, not patched

The most useful point of the decision is this: blacking out a private area after the complaint does not cure the infringement, because the Article 25 obligation applies when the system is designed and configured. A camera that filmed a home for years remains an infringement even if that part of the image is black today.

What the municipality must do

  • Survey every camera installed in the area.
  • Identify precisely the purposes and legal basis of each.
  • Check and correct the fields of view, excluding private homes, with masking or blurring where needed.
  • Carry out a complete impact assessment and rewrite the notices to residents.

What it means for the DPO

One: keep an inventory of the systems with, for each camera, location, purpose, legal basis and a snapshot of the field of view. Two: check the field of view at every installation and every move, documenting masked zones. Three: a first-layer notice (the sign) with controller, purposes and a pointer to the full text, as per EDPB Guidelines 3/2019. Four: a DPIA covering every purpose, including number-plate reading. Five: review everything when the system is extended, which is when these errors arise.

Looking for a workspace for your DPO work?

DPO Workspace is built by a certified DPO. 30-day free trial.

Start free

Related articles

Enforcement
€16,7Mfor telemarketing and contracts activated without consent

Italian DPA fines Wind Tre €16.7 million: telemarketing despite objections and contracts activated without customers' knowledge

People who had objected kept receiving calls, and some contracts were activated without the person knowing. The Garante fines Wind Tre €16.7 million and restates a principle for every company with an agency network: responsibility is not outsourced along with sales.

Oct 12, 2026New 5 min
Enforcement
€350kto controller and processor over outdated systems

Greece: €350,000 for a data breach — both the Ministry and the processor running outdated systems fined, and there was no Article 28 contract

An attack on the systems of the agency running a Ministry's programmes exposed identification, financial and health data of a very large number of people. The Hellenic DPA fines the controller €200,000 and the processor €150,000: notifying well is not enough if the supplier works on outdated systems and the relationship is not governed by a contract.

Oct 08, 2026New 5 min
Enforcement
1 mesehow long the mailbox of someone who has left may survive, and not a day longer

The mailbox of someone who left: the processing nobody documents

In decision 101/2026 of 12 May 2026 the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian data protection authority sanctioned a company that had left a former collaborator's professional mailbox active for over a year after departure. The findings go beyond retention: processing without a basis, failure of transparency, absence of technical and organisational measures for deletion, failure to honour the right of access. The authority's line has been constant for years and comes down to two dates: deactivation on the day of departure, deletion after one month.

Oct 10, 2026New 7 min