Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy) - 10188249
From GDPRhub
| Garante per la protezione dei dati personali - 10188249 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy) |
| Jurisdiction: | Italy |
| Relevant Law: | Article 85 GDPR Article 89 GDPR |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Rejected |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 25.09.2025 |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | n/a |
| Parties: | n/a |
| National Case Number/Name: | 10188249 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | Not appealed |
| Original Language(s): | Italian |
| Original Source: | GPDP (in IT) |
| Initial Contributor: | lde |
The DPA held that a news broadcaster lawfully produced and published a video depicting a political gathering engaging in anti-democratic behaviour since the processing was carried out for journalistic purposes.
English Summary
Facts
A journalist produced a video report then published by the news channels Fanpage and La7 about the political youth group “Gioventù Nazionale”, affiliated with the government party “Fratelli d’Italia”.
This report showed the group in various moments, from participations to public manifestations, to members-only group meetings. The group was seen in multiple frames engaging in anti-democratic behaviour. The journalist had access to these moments by introducing herself to members of the group as a journalist of a newpaper affiliated with the political party, thus concealing her true intentions.
Members of this group filed a complaint with the DPA against the news broadcaster employing the journalist (the controller), and asked to remove the video from the internet. They claimed the main event depicted was a private meeting, in a private domicile, thus needing their consent to be recorded. In addition, minors were present in the recording.
The news broadcaster highlighed that the tight link between Gioventù Nazionale and the current government majority makes this report relevant for public interest, especially showing the antidemocratic behaviours being undertaken by the group. Tackling the data subjects’ arguments, they replied that images show that the one reported was a clearly political and organised event, not a private meeting among friends. This is supported by the fact that accommodation was rented, participation fees collected, and leaders were speaking in a microphone behind a desk.
Thus the controller argues that there were no violations, since the face and voice of people in the videos were concealed, with exception to the leaders, as their names and faces were already known to the public. Similarly, minors were never recorded, if not for group moments outdoors, where they did not speak and their face was concealed.
Holding
The DPA dismissed the complaint. The processing was carried out in the public interest according to the relevant national provisions granting exemptions for journalist purposes, more specifically Article 136 of the national data protection code, implementing Article 85 GDPR, and for archiving purposes in the public interest under Article 102 national code implementing Article 89(3) GDPR.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the Italian original. Please refer to the Italian original for more details.
[web doc. no. 10188249] Measure of September 25, 2025 Register of Measures no. 567 of September 25, 2025 THE ITALIAN DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITY IN today's meeting, attended by Professor Pasquale Stanzione, President, Professor Ginevra Cerrina Feroni, Vice President, Dr. Agostino Ghiglia and Guido Scorza, Members, and Councillor Angelo Fanizza, Secretary General; HAVING REGARD TO Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (hereinafter, the "Regulation"); HAVING SEEN the Personal Data Protection Code, containing provisions for the adaptation of national legislation to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (Legislative Decree No. 196 of June 30, 2003, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 101 of August 10, 2018, hereinafter the "Code"); HAVING SEEN the complaint submitted pursuant to art. 77 of the Regulation, to the Guarantor on 4 July 2024 with which XX, XX, XX, XX, XX and XX, in the interest of XX, XX and XX, in the interest of XX, represented by the lawyer XX, complained about the undue acquisition and disclosure of data concerning them contained within a service entitled “Gioventù Meloniana: inchiesta sui giovani di F.d.I.”, produced by the electronic newspaper “Fanpage.it”, published by Ciao People S.r.l., and then disseminated by the same on its website and by the broadcaster La7 S.p.A. as part of the programme “Piazza Pulita” in the episode of 13 June 2024; The interested parties also complained about the dissemination of images referring to the same event (called "Cabiria") contained in a second video—titled "Anti-Semitic and racist insults: the second episode of the investigation into Gioventù Nazionale"—broadcast during an event organized by Fanpage at the "Monk Club" in Rome on June 26, 2024, and also available on the newspaper's website, YouTube page, and other Ciao People S.r.l. channels. They requested the removal of the selected excerpts identified in the complaint, highlighting the harm to their reputation and personal dignity resulting from the dissemination of such content; WHEREAS, the complainants specifically argued that: - the first report "through malicious editing and linking of video excerpts from different moments, intended to support the theory that the youth of the Gioventù Nazionale movement are subject to socially reprehensible behavior and verbal abuse, thus portraying them in a totally negative light to the public"; - During the report, images were broadcast of a private event held from April 19 to April 21, 2024, inside a private home owned by Mr. XX, who had granted it on loan to Mr. XX so that several young people, who had shared friendships that had also developed through their political activism in the Gioventù Nazionale movement, could stay there over the weekend. The invitation to attend this gathering of young people—called "Cabiria"—circulated only within a small circle of young people who shared the same friendships and connections. One of the initiators, XX, also extended the invitation to the journalist Ms. XX, known by the false name of XX, appreciating her availability and the shared purpose she had shown up to that point, which was actually instrumental in completing the report she was editing for Fanpage.it. On June 26, 2024, at the "Monk Club" in Rome, Fanpage.it organized a public event, streamed live on all of the outlet's social media channels and accompanied by a debate with various journalists. The second part of the aforementioned investigation was broadcast, which again featured images from the aforementioned meeting. Ms. XX failed to disclose both her "identity" and the "purpose of the data collection," in violation of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Code of Ethics. This breached the prohibition of "artifice" set forth in that article, given that, in this case, the conditions under which the law allows a journalist to act without revealing his or her identity cannot be considered to exist. Precisely on the basis of this false representation, carried out over several months, Ms. XX not only had access to all events, demonstrations, and activities organized by the Gioventù Nazionale movement in public places or places open to the public, but was also able to participate in the private meeting held from April 19 to 21, 2024, to which she would not have been invited had her true intentions and identity been known; The information disseminated cannot be considered in the public interest given that it was a private event, which took place in an equally private place and involved unknown persons; The report—particularly with regard to the portion of the footage between minute XX and minute XX—violates the constitutional rights to freedom of domicile and to the confidentiality of communications conducted therein, violating the principle of essentiality of information set forth in Article 137, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Personal Data Protection Code, as well as Articles 137 et seq. 5, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Ethics; The simple obscuring of the faces of the meeting participants (though not all of them) does not prevent the location from being identified, nor does it exclude the possibility of tracing its owners or meeting participants, given that the intrusive methods used render the data collection unlawful; In this case, there was a violation of the freedom of domicile, protected by Article 14 of the Constitution, given that the information manipulation implemented by the journalist undermined the freedom of choice made by those who admitted her to the meeting, also violating the freedom of communication protected by Article 15 of the Constitution and undermining the right of those present to choose whether and to whom they freely express their opinions; It is also necessary to take into account the specific protections provided for minors present at the gathering who may be deeply distressed by the event in question, even regardless of whether they have been recognized, "the feeling of betrayed trust, violence, manipulation, and resulting insecurity regarding their future relationships with others being sufficient." SEEN the note dated July 18, 2024, in which the Authority asked data controllers to provide their observations regarding the content of the opening statement of the proceeding and to communicate their possible intention to comply with the complainants' requests; SEEN the note dated September 6, 2024, in which La7 S.p.A., represented by attorneys XX and XX, stated that: - Gioventù Nazionale is an organization that brings together young people (aged 14 to 32) who are close to the political ideas of the conservative right, as clearly stated in the text of the Statute, which, in Article 1, states "Gioventù Nazionale is the sole and official organization of young people who identify with the goals of the Fratelli d'Italia-Alleanza Nazionale party association"; - the connection between Gioventù Nazionale and the Fratelli d'Italia political party is not merely ideological, as the Statute itself provides for multi-level coordination between the movement's top leadership and the internal divisions of the Fratelli d'Italia organization at the provincial, regional, and national levels; - This close relationship between Gioventù Nazionale and the current government's majority party means there is significant public interest in exploring both the internal dynamics of this youth movement and the values shared by its young members; - La7 S.p.A. broadcast only the first part of the Fanpage online news investigation and cannot be held responsible in any way for the subsequent broadcast of the second part of the "Gioventù Meloniana" investigation, of which the Company is not involved; - Viewing the Fanpage segment of the report aired on La7 on June 13, 2024, reveals its significant informational function, namely, "documenting how, among both Gioventù Nazionale's members and leaders, attitudes and opinions inspired by Nazi-fascist, racist, and more generally anti-democratic ideology were widespread, which were carefully concealed and disguised when the movement 'showed its public face'"; - The images demonstrate the objective difficulty of documenting such conduct, as they reveal that Gioventù Nazionale activists "were concerned, for example, during the ritual of the present, with urging young people to refrain from greeting people and prohibiting participants, 'for the success of the concert' held inside the party headquarters in Colle Oppio, from taking photos and videos." - Therefore, only by infiltrating a Gioventù Nazionale club was the Fanpage journalist able to participate in activities in which the movement's activists gave free rein to their ideologies; For example, he was able to attend concerts held inside the party headquarters in Colle Oppio, where participants, despite the ban on photography and video, sang fascist chants while performing the Roman salute; he participated in the so-called "rite of the present" (in which far-right "martyrs" are remembered), noting that the organizers urged those present to refrain from performing the Roman salute in front of the cameras; he documented young people from the Pinciano branch of the National Liberation Front (GN) posting stickers on the streets of Rome with the incontrovertible message "reject modernity, embrace fascism"; - Among the events included in the report is also one called "Cabiria," which took place at XX and which the complainants claim was a "private" event and, in particular, a "weekend stay of several young people united by friendships that also developed through their political activism in the Gioventù Nazionale movement," although the film documents a different reality, as emerges from the "images that depict various moments of "The daily life of a youth gathering with connotations much closer to a community camp organized by the youth movement"; - the complainants themselves indicate XX as "one of the promoters" of the event and XX as the individual to whom the owner had loaned XX, namely two members of Gioventù Nazionale with leadership roles who played a driving role in the initiative and actively participated in it. These include, among other things, the images depicting XX and XX seated at a table set up outdoors complete with microphones and banners, or the clothing of the rally participants, who wore matching shirts with the Cabiria logo, and XX's presence at the outdoor Greco-Roman wrestling exercises; As documented by the report, during the Cabiria event, the participants, gathered outdoors, sang fascist chants, repeatedly praised Benito Mussolini, and repeatedly chanted the Nazi slogan "sieg heil"; The complainants, while admitting that these were unethical behaviors, reprehensible, they then downplayed it by assuming that it was a matter of extrapolated fragments and that they were in any case expressions of goliardic fun, although by viewing the film it is possible to ascertain that the behaviours filmed constitute "alarming signs of deviance within the National Youth given that (...) they conflictwith the democratic principles of our country and with the same values proclaimed in art. 1 of the Gioventù Nazionale Statute"; Given the social relevance of the investigation, there was no violation of the complainants' confidentiality, as their anonymity was guaranteed by obscuring their faces and voices, with the sole exception of the Gioventù Nazionale leaders, who are adults known for their political roles, namely XX and XX, who are not among the complainants; Confirmation of the correct obscuring may also be derived from the fact that the complainants made a generic reference to the minutes of the episode in which the excerpts from the Fanpage investigation were broadcast, without being able to indicate the specific frames in which they were filmed; It is believed that the interested parties are not entitled to file the complaint, as they have not in any way demonstrated either their presence at the location where the event took place or their visibility in the film. Nor are they entitled to complain about the dissemination of footage of the interiors and appurtenances of XX, given that, by their own admission, "the building is not their property, nor was it granted to them on free loan, but to a third party who is not among the complainants, specifically XX, nor has any stable connection been documented between them and XX such as to be considered their domicile or private residence"; The criticisms leveled by the interested parties at the measures adopted by the owners are made in general terms precisely because it is impossible to deny their effectiveness. The same must be said with regard to the complaints expressed regarding the alleged recognizability of the places where the event took place, given that in none of the shots, whether internal or external, were elements capable of unambiguously identifying the building filmed, which in fact the complainants were unable to precisely identify; On the merits, the processing carried out occurred in the legitimate pursuit of journalistic purposes, taking into account that - with regard to the objection raised by the complainants regarding the violation of Article 2 of the Rules of Ethics, which provides for the prohibition of the use of artifices or Deception in the exercise of her profession - the journalist's choice to operate "undercover" was the only remaining means to "capture the images included in the report attesting to the unacceptable anti-democratic conduct, as indeed admitted by the complainants' own defense in the passage cited above (see complaint "...she would not have been invited if her true intentions and identity had been known")"; The journalist's concealment of her identity was essential to the production of the report, the contents of which proved to be of significant social interest; otherwise, she would not have been able to document the facts reported in the investigation and would have run a risk to her own safety; The place where the event occurred is not a private residence, as the complainants argue, as it is a hotel that has also been reviewed by guests who stayed there. Consequently, the place depicted in the report cannot be considered their "domicile" or "private residence," lacking the requirement of stability (see Criminal Cassation United Section - March 23, 2017, No. 31345), nor a private event); To qualify a place as a domicile, it is necessary to demonstrate a continuous relationship between the person and the place, such that the latter becomes an extension of the former, excluding places where occasional private activities take place; It is certainly of public interest that "a large group of youth political organizations closely connected to the ruling majority party cultivated racist and anti-democratic attitudes and ideologies, and that the National Youth itself had organized a rally where the young guests—including minors (!)—sang songs praising Mussolini and repeatedly shouted the Nazi slogan "sieg heil" in chorus." The processing of personal data was carried out in compliance with the criterion of strict relevance to the topic under investigation, namely the presence of anti-democratic behavior within the National Youth youth movement. Only images were shown in which the subjects—made unrecognizable through special The blacking out of faces and voices, with the exception of the two managers XX and XX, who in any case are not among the complainants, engaged in the behavior described above, without disclosing any other information that was not necessary for the investigation and could indirectly identify the participants; For the same reasons, the objections raised by the complainants regarding the alleged processing of data relating to minors must be rejected, given that the latter do not appear visible in the video, nor were any elements released that could indirectly identify them. Rather, the educational relevance of allowing minors to participate in gatherings of this type must be considered; CONSIDERING the communication of September 11, 2024, in which Ciao People S.r.l. declared the following: to consider the publication of the video investigation to be legitimate, which, to date, consists of two videos, the first of XX minutes, "Gioventù Meloniana: Investigation of Youth of FdI" and the second of XX minutes, "Anti-Semitic and Racist Insults: The Second "An episode of the investigation into Gioventù Nazionale"; The publication highlights the outcome of a particularly significant investigative effort, which has received worldwide attention, aimed at exposing the events within Gioventù Nazionale, the youth organization of the Fratelli d'Italia party. This investigation highlights the reprehensible references to fascism, anti-Semitism, racism, and incitements to hatred and violence by numerous Gioventù Nazionale members. The report was created by editing images, videos, and audio content recorded and filmed by the journalist in multiple situations, including those during an event held from April 19 to 21, 2024, within XX. The aforementioned report aimed to highlight that Gioventù Nazionale members routinely engage in socially reprehensible behavior, and to some extent, even criminal behavior, namely, the glorification of fascism and Nazism, and the incitement of anti-Semitism and racism. The organization is of a Gioventù Nazionale's political stance, during its gatherings, encourages and does not censor such behavior in any way, revealing a strong dissonance between its public attitude and that adopted within Gioventù Nazionale and the Fratelli d'Italia party. On "public" occasions, the attitude of activists has changed significantly. Aware of the seriousness of their behavior, they urge other members to behave differently in front of journalists, who on some occasions—such as rock concerts featuring far-right bands (from minute 20, again in the Video Investigation Part 1)—expressly prohibit the taking of photos and videos to prevent what is happening from becoming known and documented. Ciao People takes the utmost care with regard to any content that includes minors and has specified that the investigation materials were, at the time of the investigation, securely stored within the Society's archives and have now been handed over to the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office. The recordings do not concern any private moments; no video recordings were made. For example, in rooms, inside tents, or in more private places and moments, having been limited to "group situations" and mostly taking place in outdoor locations open to the public, such as woods; The event held at XX cannot be considered private, as claimed by those involved, being a political event made possible by Gioventù Nazionale, adding that XX cannot be considered a private residence, but rather a sort of farm stay available for stays and for organizing events; To obtain an invitation to participate in the event, XX, "who from the first contact had stated that he was a journalist and wanted to collaborate with the movement's newspapers, only had to pretend to share the same values, passions, and political ideals as members of Gioventù Nazionale itself; The journalist was not invited to participate in the event because she was a friend of the other participants, but rather because of her collaboration as a journalist with Gioventù Nazionale and its affiliated newspaper, Nazione Futura. The community camp called "Cabiria" arose from the need to organize opportunities for discussion and debate among young people who shared the same ideals, as confirmed by the fact that the event was attended by young people from the Gioventù Nazionale clubs of Pinciano, Garbatella, and Montesacro—not coincidentally all under the direction of XX, who also negotiated the contract for the use of the property for the event—with the invitation extended to other members, all belonging to the same Movement. From these circumstances, it therefore emerges that the purpose of the event was not a gathering of friends, but rather the creation of an opportunity for debate, organization, education, and political exchange, as is clearly evident from the images featuring leaders and prominent members of Gioventù Nazionale. who, seated behind a sort of "lecture," address an audience of listeners through a microphone, with the tone of someone who wants to "train" and "educate"; For participation in the event, the journalist was asked to contribute a modest sixty euros, "which she paid directly to XX.The sum—theoretically sufficient to cover the cost of two nights' accommodation in a farmhouse and food for the event—leads to the presumption that it was supplemented by a contribution from Gioventù Nazionale itself, a circumstance that would strengthen the position that it was a political initiative of Gioventù Nazionale; Therefore, it is in the public interest to delve deeper into the internal dynamics of this youth movement, including the values shared by its young members. This was done in compliance with the principle of essential information, given that all participants' faces were obscured, preventing their identities from being traced, with the exception of those at the top of the Gioventù Nazionale organization, who were therefore already of considerable public importance; "Following the broadcast of the reports, the entire political class condemned what was revealed by the investigation (the Prime Minister herself declared her distance from racist, anti-Semitic, and nostalgic sentiments), which is why some leading figures of Gioventù Nazionale have reevaluated their position and therefore the public role they hold, an example being XX, who deemed it appropriate to resign from the National Youth Council. Giorgia Meloni herself, "in the interview given to reporters present in Brussels and published by Fanpage.it on June 28, 2024 (https://...), among other things, declared herself grateful for what the investigation revealed: 'I am grateful because this clearly helps me intervene.' (from minute 20) A statement which, in the writer's opinion, is also intended to underscore the political (and therefore not private) nature of the meetings." Irreversible blackout measures were adopted to protect the participants' individual identities, while on the rare occasions in which the journalist was aware of the participants' minor age, she abstained from recording them in any way from the outset. The only identifiable individuals are the adult leaders of Gioventù Nazionale, the main target of the investigation itself, "considering that, from what emerged, they were committed to training the youngest members of Gioventù Nazionale in sharing antisocial values such as racism and anti-Semitism. None of them, for obvious reasons. acted for the processing of their data, as they were the only ones potentially entitled to do so; The journalist presented herself as a journalist and always identified herself as a collaborator of Nazione Futura, a newspaper "friendly" to Gioventù Nazionale, limiting herself to slightly changing her last name to avoid being identified, while omitting to disclose the purpose of the data collection because it is clear that, had she done so, she could not have served any informative function; the recording, having been made by a person present at the events, cannot be classified as wiretapping, but is a recording between persons present whose use is legitimate when performed in the exercise of the right to report; The claim in the complaint that the data collected refers to unknown individuals is questionable, "considering that Messrs. XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, and XX are all GN executives, some in senior roles." None of the interested parties are recognizable in the video, therefore the legal standing of the interested parties is excluded. same; SEEN the note dated September 20, 2024, in which the interested parties, in providing their responses to the data controllers' responses, observed that: In response to the objection raised by the data controllers regarding the lack of legal standing of the interested parties as they were not identifiable, the affidavits of Mr. and Mrs. XX were filed, in which they attested to their presence at "XX" and to their being filmed during the service, indicating the time of such filming; The data collection activity involved personal data in addition to that disclosed – but, in any case, potentially discloseable – therefore, the affidavits of XX, Mr. XX, Mrs. XX, in her capacity as parent exercising parental authority over XX, and Mrs. XX, in her capacity as parent exercising parental authority over XX, were also filed. These affidavits account for the participation of the aforementioned individuals in the meeting organized at "XX," despite not being classified as services; Ciaopeople attempts to justify the lawfulness of the collection and subsequent disclosure of personal data by citing the alleged public interest of the information and the alleged essential nature of the processing, without ever invoking Article 3 of the Rules of Ethics, which protects the home; The distinction between a private place and a place open to the public lies neither in the nature of the activities taking place there nor in the number of participants, but exclusively in the circumstance that meetings in a private place are reserved for a certain number of people who access them based on the invitation of the holder of the jus excludendi alios. Otherwise, the essential core of the right proclaimed by Article 14 of the Constitution, which consists both in the ability to prevent access to outsiders and in the right to enjoy a sphere of privacy, consisting in the impossibility of being perceived from the outside even independently of physical intrusion, is also incorrect; Ciao People's statement that "the filming is not were filmed in a private location, considering that most of them took place in outdoor locations open to the public (such as woods)," and this is because viewing the report shows that the filming was also done indoors; in any case, the filming "in outdoor locations open to the public" is tainted by the violation of the domicile originally committed by XX, who had unlawfully entered the "XX"; Furthermore, with regard to the objection raised by La7 according to which, in this case, there is a lack of a stable connection between the place where the event took place and the complainants – required by the Supreme Court for the purposes of constituting a place as a domicile – it must be said that the complainants' stay in the "XX" for a period of three days is capable of "establishing that situation of connection between place and person characterized by stability, "even if understood in a relative sense," which the Supreme Court deems essential for the integration of the concept of domicile and/or private "residence"; the violation of the journalist's identification obligation (Article 2 of the Rules of Ethics) and the protection of domicile pursuant to Article 3 of the same Rules are closely related, as the journalist's misrepresentation of the good faith of those who had access to the XX would have fundamentally undermined the will and freedom of choice of those individuals in including or excluding the journalist, arguing that the right to report cannot serve to exonerate the conduct of those who, in gathering news, commit crimes; the complaint does not pursue censorship purposes, as it does not concern "the report in its entirety, but only those limited parts in relation to which the aforementioned interests were harmed"; CONSIDERING the note dated January 22, 2025, in which the Authority requested Ciao People S.r.l. to disclose the information available to the company regarding any criminal proceedings initiated by the competent Prosecutor's Office. following the request for the delivery of the videos; SEEN the communication of January 23, 2025, in which Ciao People S.r.l. declared that, following the request for the transmission of the full copy of the video by the competent prosecutor's office, "it has not received any further requests and/or notices and currently does not have any further information regarding the aforementioned criminal proceedings"; SEEN the note of April 11, 2025, in which the Authority asked Ciao People S.r.l. for further information regarding the methods by which the journalist who wrote the article, XX, came into contact with the organizers of the Cabiria event—namely, whether they were aware of her profession and whether she was asked for any references in order to join the Movement—whether the videos held by the Company contain additional images, in addition to those indicated in the complaint, attributable to the interested parties, and whether such material is still in the possession of the Public Prosecutor's Office; SEEN the note of April 18, 2025, in which Ciao People S.r.l. declared the following: On September 29, 2023, during the "Italian Conservatism" conference organized by the think tank Nazione Futura, the journalist and author of the article, XX, introduced herself to some Gioventù Nazionale activists using the pseudonym "XX," openly declaring, from the first contact, that she was a journalist and wanted to collaborate with the Movement's newspapers; On January 9, 2024, after participating in several demonstrations related to that political area, the journalist was contacted by telephone by the local leader of the Movement, who officially invited her to join the Movement's militancy; the invitation was then renewed via WhatsApp on January 16, 2024 by XX, then XX; Precisely by virtue of this journalistic collaboration with the Movement and its "affiliated" newspaper Nazione Futura, XX invited her several times, through written and voice messages exchanged between the March 27 and April 18, 2024, to participate in the so-called "community camp" called Cabiria; On that occasion, she was asked to help organize the event by taking photos and videos to be published on the Movement's official social media channels, which she did shortly after they were shot; The Movement was aware of XX's journalistic career, but initially no references were requested for collaboration with the newspaper Nazione Futura; The invitation to collaborate with the aforementioned newspaper came directly from its Vice President on September 29, 2023, shortly after meeting the journalist, and only subsequently, and solely to further develop her skills, was she asked to submit her CV; Among the Gioventù Nazionale activists were young men and women who collaborate or have collaborated with Nazione Futura, writing articles or participating in its events; The videos do not contain any images other than those indicated in the complaint that can be traced back to the individuals involved, and we are not aware of any subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings cited in the response of January 23, 2025, even though the investigation materials are still in the possession of the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office; NOTING that – as repeatedly maintained by the Authority – in order to reconcile individual rights (particularly the right to privacy) with freedom of expression, the legislation on the protection of personal data provides specific guarantees and precautions in the case of processing carried out for journalistic purposes, confirming their lawfulness, even when carried out without the consent of the data subjects, provided that they are carried out in compliance with the rights, fundamental freedoms, and dignity of the individual.of the persons to whom the processed data refers (see Articles 136 et seq. and Article 102, paragraph 2, letter a), of the Code) and provided that they are carried out in compliance with the principle of materiality of information regarding matters of public interest (Article 6 of the Rules of Ethics); CONSIDERING that the competent Public Prosecutor's Office has initiated an investigation against persons unknown regarding the events that occurred, requesting Ciao People for a full copy of the video released, without, however, sending, based on the statements made by the company, any information to the latter that would suggest the initiation of proceedings against the editor-in-chief of the newspaper or the journalist who conducted the investigation; NOTED, with reference to the request to remove the content of the two videos cited above and released by Ciao People S.r.l. and, with regard to the first, also by La7 S.p.A. Corresponding to the footage of the "Cabiria" event, which: - Gioventù Nazionale is an organization comprised of young people between the ages of 14 and 32 who, as stated in its statute, "identify with the goals of the Fratelli d'Italia-Alleanza Nazionale party association," with which there is an ideological connection and multi-level coordination between the Movement's top leadership and the internal divisions of the Fratelli d'Italia organization at the provincial, regional, and national levels; - The video investigation at issue in this case, produced by the newspaper "Fanpage.it," aims to document the attitudes, which appear to be inspired by Nazi-fascist and anti-democratic ideology, adopted by both members and leaders of Gioventù Nazionale and manifested during various events organized by the Movement itself; - What was particularly highlighted within the report was the existence of a significant divergence between the conduct of members during the aforementioned meetings and that adopted in public circumstances based on specific instructions provided by the organizers; - Among the events documented in the investigation is also the event known as "Cabiria," which took place between April 19 and 21, 2024, at the "XX" facility. Given its characteristics and the presence of Gioventù Nazionale leaders—specifically, XX and XX, identified by the complainants themselves as among the event's organizers—it does not appear to be a mere gathering of friends, but rather a moment of debate and political discussion; The investigation is therefore of public relevance, confirmed by the reactions, including political ones, following its release, as well as by the complainants themselves, who did not request its entire removal, but limited their requests to specific minutes of the report coinciding with what was filmed within XX (specifically, for the first report, from XX to XX, with reference to minutes XX; XX: XX-XX; XX-XX; XX-XX; XX-XX; XX-XX; XX-XX; XX-XX; as for the second report, published only by Ciaopeople, the second minutes X, XX, XX, XX, XX; from minute XX to XX; minute XX; from minute XX to minute XX; from minute XX to XX); It should be noted, however, that only some of the sections indicated in the complaint contain images that, despite having been originally obscured, are attributable to two of the complainants, who have in fact stated that they recognized themselves in them (namely, XX, who stated that he was present at minute XX of the first video, and XX, who stated that she was visible from behind from minute XX to minute XX of the first video); - the other data subjects who filed a complaint, including two minors, are not depicted in the report, and their data is not present in the videos available to the company, which has in fact made a specific statement confirming this fact; - viewing of the fragments indicated by the two complainants—pictured in an external environment and in group settings—does not reveal any elements that would allow, in light of the obscuring carried out by the data controllers, their identification, given that there is no additional data, such as their voice, that would allow even indirect recognition; - the only identifiable individuals in the report are those holding senior positions in the Gioventù Nazionale movement, namely XX and XX, who are not among the complainants and who, as can also be deduced from their conduct during the event, were responsible for its organization (from selecting the location to managing the activities); - regarding the alleged trespassing—which, based on the complainants' objections, was allegedly committed by the journalist in order to participate in the event, thus undermining the lawfulness of the subsequent data collection activity—the evidence emerging during the proceedings is not sufficient to confirm this circumstance and therefore the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Rules of Ethics concerning the Processing of Data in Journalistic Activities; - First of all, it should be noted that the location where the event took place does not appear to be a private residence, and therefore does not fall within the commonly understood concept of domicile, as it is a hospitality facility that the owner granted on loan for use under a specific contract to XX, national leader of Gioventù Nazionale; - the building, both due to its intended purpose and the nature of the event hosted, does not appear to meet the requirements of domicile as a private residence. To be such, and based on what is also established by the case law, this requires stability, that is, a continuous relationship between the person and the location, capable of making the latter an extension of the former, thereby excluding places where occasional activities take place; - the location in question cannot therefore be considered the domicile of any of the complainants, who were there with other people as participants in an event for which, according to the information provided by Ciao People, they paid a fee, albeit a small one, for accommodation expenses; - It must also be considered that the journalist did not have to act forcefully or covertly to gain access to the "Cabiria" event, and therefore to the XX, having been invited by one of the promoters (XX), having participated in a series of the Movement's events during which she was able to obtain the information that later flowed into the story. From what emerged during the proceedings, she was asked to contribute to the organization of the event by taking photos and videos to be subsequently published on the Movement's official social media channels, which, according to Ciao People, she did. The only measure used by the journalist was to slightly change her name (transforming it from XX to XX) to avoid being identified, omitting to disclose the purpose of the data collection in order to perform the informational function that she would not have been able to perform otherwise. In the story, she limited herself to the narration of moments deemed relevant to the public interest, excluding moments of private life. Finally, it should be noted that, based on Ciao People's statements in the supplementary information request submitted by the Authority, the newspaper close to the Movement asked the journalist for a CV after the start of the collaboration, which could have been used to identify any anomalies, even simply by conducting online searches where various images and information about her are available; CONSIDERING, in light of the reasons set out above, that the complaint must be declared unfounded; CONSIDERING the documentation in the file; CONSIDERING the observations made pursuant to Article 15 of the Guarantor's Regulation No. 1/2000; RAPPORTEUR: Professor Pasquale Stanzione; NOW CONSIDERING ALL THE FOREGOING, THE GUARANTOR pursuant to Articles 57, paragraph 1, letter f), declares the complaint unfounded. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, as well as Articles 152 of the Code and 10 of Legislative Decree no. 150 of September 1, 2011, an appeal against this provision may be lodged with the ordinary judicial authority, with an appeal filed either with the court of the place where the data controller resides or has its registered office or with the court of the place of residence of the interested party within thirty days of the date of notification of the provision itself, or sixty days if the appellant resides abroad. Rome, September 25, 2025 THE PRESIDENT Stanzione THE REPORTER Stanzione THE GENERAL SECRETARY Fanizza [web doc. no. 10188249] Provision of September 25, 2025 Register of Provisions no. 567 of September 25, 2025 THE AUTHORITY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA IN today's meeting, attended by Prof. Pasquale Stanzione, President, Professor Ginevra Cerrina Feroni, Vice President, Dr. Agostino Ghiglia and Attorney Guido Scorza, Members, and Councillor Angelo Fanizza, Secretary General; SEEN Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (hereinafter, the "Regulation"); SEEN the Personal Data Protection Code, containing provisions for the adaptation of national legislation to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (Legislative Decree No. 196 of 30 June 2003, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 101 of 10 August 2018, hereinafter, the "Code"); SEEN the complaint submitted pursuant to art. 77 of the Regulation, to the Guarantor on 4 July 2024 with which XX, XX, XX, XX, XX and XX, in the interest of XX, XX and XX, in the interest of XX, represented by the lawyer XX, complained about the undue acquisition and disclosure of data concerning them contained within a service entitled “Gioventù Meloniana: inchiesta sui giovani di F.d.I.”, produced by the electronic newspaper “Fanpage.it”, published by Ciao People S.r.l., and then disseminated by the same on its website and by the broadcaster La7 S.p.A.as part of the program "Piazza Pulita" in the episode of June 13, 2024. The interested parties also complained about the dissemination of images referring to the same event (called "Cabiria") contained in a second video—titled "Anti-Semitic and racist insults: the second episode of the investigation into Gioventù Nazionale"—broadcast during an event organized by Fanpage at the "Monk Club" in Rome on June 26, 2024, and also available on the newspaper's website, as well as on the YouTube page and other channels of Ciao People S.r.l. They requested the removal of the selected excerpts identified in the complaint, highlighting the harm to their reputation and personal dignity resulting from the dissemination of such content; WHEREAS, the complainants have specifically argued that: - the first report, "through malicious editing and linking of video clips from different moments, sought to support the theory that young people from the Gioventù Nazionale movement are subject to socially reprehensible behavior and verbal abuse, thus portraying them in a totally negative light to the public"; - during the report, images were broadcast of a private event held from April 19 to April 21, 2024, inside a private home owned by Mr. XX, who had granted the home on loan to Mr. XX so that several young people, who share a friendship that had also developed through their political activism in the Gioventù Nazionale movement, could stay over the weekend; The invitation to participate in this youth gathering—called "Cabiria"—circulated only within a small circle of young people who shared the same friendships and social circles, and one of the initiators, XX, extended the invitation to the journalist Ms. XX, known by the false name of XX, appreciating her willingness and the shared purpose she had shown until then, which was actually instrumental in completing the report she was editing for Fanpage.it. On June 26, 2024, at the "Monk Club" in Rome, Fanpage.it organized a public event, streamed live on all of the newspaper's social media channels and accompanied by a debate with various journalists. During the event, the second part of the aforementioned investigation was broadcast, which again featured images from the aforementioned gathering. Ms. XX failed to disclose both her "identity" and the "purpose of the collection," in violation of Article 13 of the Italian Civil Code. 2, paragraph 1, of the Code of Ethics, thus violating the prohibition of "artifice" provided for by that article, given that, in the case at hand, the conditions under which the law allows a journalist to act without revealing his or her identity cannot be considered met; Precisely on the basis of this false representation, carried out over several months, Ms. XX not only had access to all events, demonstrations, and activities organized by the Gioventù Nazionale movement in public places or places open to the public, but was also able to participate in the private meeting held from April 19 to 21, 2024, to which she would not have been invited had her true intentions and identity been known; The information disclosed cannot be considered to be in the public interest given that it was a private event, which took place in an equally private place and involved unknown persons; The report—particularly the portion of the video between minute 20 and minute 20—violates the constitutional rights to freedom of domicile and the confidentiality of communications conducted therein, violating the principle of essentiality of information set forth in Article 137, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Personal Data Protection Code, as well as Articles 5, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Ethics; The simple obscuring of the faces of the meeting participants (though not all of them) does not prevent the location from being identified, nor does it exclude the possibility of tracing its owners or meeting participants, given that the intrusive methods used render the data collection unlawful; In this case, there was a violation of the freedom of domicile, protected by Article 137, paragraph 1, of the Personal Data Protection Code. 14 of the Constitution, given that the journalist's prior manipulation of information undermined the freedom of choice made by those who admitted her to the meeting, thereby also violating the freedom of communication protected by Article 15 of the Constitution and undermining the right of those present to choose whether and to whom they may freely express their opinions; Furthermore, it is necessary to take into account the specific protections provided for minors present at the gathering who may be deeply disturbed by the event in question, even regardless of whether they have been recognized, "the feeling of betrayed trust, violence, manipulation, and resulting insecurity regarding their future relationships with others being sufficient." SEEN the note dated July 18, 2024, in which the Authority asked the data controllers to provide their observations regarding the content of the opening statement of the proceeding and to communicate their possible intention to comply with the complainants' requests; SEEN the note dated September 6, 2024, in which La7 S.p.A., represented by attorneys XX and XX, stated that: - Gioventù Nazionale is an organization that brings together young people (aged 14 to 32) who are close to the political ideas of the conservative right, as clearly stated in the text of the Statute, which, in Article 1, states "Gioventù Nazionale is the sole and official organization of young people who identify with the goals of the Fratelli d'Italia-Alleanza Nazionale party association"; - the connection between Gioventù Nazionale and the Fratelli d'Italia political party is not merely ideological, as the Statute itself provides for multi-level coordination between the movement's top leadership and the internal divisions of the Fratelli d'Italia organization at the provincial, regional, and national levels; - This close relationship between Gioventù Nazionale and the current government's majority party means there is significant public interest in exploring both the internal dynamics of this youth movement and the values shared by its young members; - La7 S.p.A. broadcast only the first part of the Fanpage online news investigation and cannot be held responsible in any way for the subsequent broadcast of the second part of the "Gioventù Meloniana" investigation, of which the Company is not involved; - Viewing the Fanpage segment of the report aired on La7 on June 13, 2024, reveals its significant informational function, namely, "documenting how, among both Gioventù Nazionale's members and leaders, attitudes and opinions inspired by Nazi-fascist, racist, and more generally anti-democratic ideology were widespread, which were carefully concealed and disguised when the movement 'showed its public face'"; - The images demonstrate the objective difficulty of documenting such conduct, as they reveal that Gioventù Nazionale activists "were concerned, for example, during the ritual of the present, with urging young people to refrain from greeting people and prohibiting participants, 'for the success of the concert' held inside the party headquarters in Colle Oppio, from taking photos and videos." - Therefore, only by infiltrating a Gioventù Nazionale club was the Fanpage journalist able to participate in activities in which the movement's activists gave free rein to their ideologies; For example, he was able to attend concerts held inside the party headquarters in Colle Oppio, where participants, despite the ban on photography and video, sang fascist chants while performing the Roman salute; he participated in the so-called "rite of the present" (in which far-right "martyrs" are remembered), noting that the organizers urged those present to refrain from performing the Roman salute in front of the cameras; he documented young people from the Pinciano branch of the National Liberation Front (GN) posting stickers on the streets of Rome with the incontrovertible message "reject modernity, embrace fascism"; - Among the events included in the report is also one called "Cabiria," which took place at XX and which the complainants claim was a "private" event and, in particular, a "weekend stay of several young people united by friendships that also developed through their political activism in the Gioventù Nazionale movement," although the film documents a different reality, as emerges from the "images that depict various moments of "The daily life of a youth gathering with connotations much closer to a community camp organized by the youth movement"; - the complainants themselves indicate XX as "one of the promoters" of the event and XX as the individual to whom the owner had loaned XX, namely two members of Gioventù Nazionale with leadership roles who played a driving role in the initiative and actively participated in it. These include, among other things, the images depicting XX and XX seated at a table set up outdoors complete with microphones and banners, or the clothing of the rally participants, who wore matching shirts with the Cabiria logo, and XX's presence at the outdoor Greco-Roman wrestling exercises; As documented by the report, during the Cabiria event, the participants, gathered outdoors, sang fascist chants, repeatedly praised Benito Mussolini, and repeatedly chanted the Nazi slogan "sieg heil"; The complainants, while admitting that these were unethical behaviors, reprehensible, they then downplayed it by assuming that these were extrapolated fragments and that they were in any case expressions of joking, although by viewing the film it is possible to ascertain that the behaviours filmed constitute "alarming signs of deviance within the National Youth given that (...) they conflict with the democratic principles of our country and with the very values proclaimed in the art.1 of the Gioventù Nazionale Statute"; Given the social relevance of the investigation, there was no violation of the complainants' confidentiality, as their anonymity was guaranteed by obscuring their faces and voices, with the sole exception of the Gioventù Nazionale leaders, who are adults known for their political roles, namely XX and XX, who are not among the complainants; Confirmation of the correct obscuring may also be derived from the fact that the complainants made a generic reference to the minutes of the episode in which the excerpts from the Fanpage investigation were broadcast, without being able to indicate the specific frames in which they were filmed; It is believed that the interested parties are not entitled to file the complaint, as they have not in any way demonstrated either their presence at the location where the event took place or their visibility in the film. Nor are they entitled to complain about the dissemination of footage of the interiors and appurtenances of XX, given that, by their own admission, "the building is not their property, nor was it granted to them on free loan, but to a third party who is not among the complainants, specifically XX, nor has any stable connection been documented between them and XX such as to be considered their domicile or private residence"; The criticisms leveled by the interested parties at the measures adopted by the owners are made in general terms precisely because it is impossible to deny their effectiveness. The same must be said with regard to the complaints expressed regarding the alleged recognizability of the places where the event took place, given that in none of the shots, whether internal or external, were elements capable of unambiguously identifying the building filmed, which in fact the complainants were unable to precisely identify; On the merits, the processing carried out occurred in the legitimate pursuit of journalistic purposes, taking into account that - with regard to the objection raised by the complainants regarding the violation of Article 2 of the Rules of Ethics, which provides for the prohibition of the use of artifices or Deception in the exercise of her profession - the journalist's choice to operate "undercover" was the only remaining means to "capture the images included in the report attesting to the unacceptable anti-democratic conduct, as indeed admitted by the complainants' own defense in the passage cited above (see complaint "...she would not have been invited if her true intentions and identity had been known")"; The journalist's concealment of her identity was essential to the production of the report, the contents of which proved to be of significant social interest; otherwise, she would not have been able to document the facts reported in the investigation and would have run a risk to her own safety; The place where the event occurred is not a private residence, as the complainants argue, as it is a hotel that has also been reviewed by guests who stayed there. Consequently, the place depicted in the report cannot be considered their "domicile" or "private residence," lacking the requirement of stability (see Criminal Cassation United Section - March 23, 2017, No. 31345), nor a private event); To qualify a place as a domicile, it is necessary to demonstrate a continuous relationship between the person and the place, such that the latter becomes an extension of the former, excluding places where occasional private activities take place; It is certainly of public interest that "a large group of youth political organizations closely connected to the ruling majority party cultivated racist and anti-democratic attitudes and ideologies, and that the National Youth itself had organized a rally where the young guests—including minors (!)—sang songs praising Mussolini and repeatedly shouted the Nazi slogan "sieg heil" in chorus." The processing of personal data was carried out in compliance with the criterion of strict relevance to the topic under investigation, namely the presence of anti-democratic behavior within the National Youth youth movement. Only images were shown in which the subjects—made unrecognizable through special The blacking out of faces and voices, with the exception of the two managers XX and XX, who in any case are not among the complainants, engaged in the behavior described above, without disclosing any other information that was not necessary for the investigation and could indirectly identify the participants; For the same reasons, the objections raised by the complainants regarding the alleged processing of data relating to minors must be rejected, given that the latter do not appear visible in the video, nor were any elements released that could indirectly identify them. Rather, the educational relevance of allowing minors to participate in gatherings of this type must be considered; CONSIDERING the communication of September 11, 2024, in which Ciao People S.r.l. declared the following: to consider the publication of the video investigation to be legitimate, which, to date, consists of two videos, the first of XX minutes, "Gioventù Meloniana: Investigation of Youth of FdI" and the second of XX minutes, "Anti-Semitic and Racist Insults: The Second "An episode of the investigation into Gioventù Nazionale"; The publication highlights the outcome of a particularly significant investigative effort, which has received worldwide attention, aimed at exposing the events within Gioventù Nazionale, the youth organization of the Fratelli d'Italia party. This investigation highlights the reprehensible references to fascism, anti-Semitism, racism, and incitements to hatred and violence by numerous Gioventù Nazionale members. The report was created by editing images, videos, and audio content recorded and filmed by the journalist in multiple situations, including those during an event held from April 19 to 21, 2024, within XX. The aforementioned report aimed to highlight that Gioventù Nazionale members routinely engage in socially reprehensible behavior, and to some extent, even criminal behavior, namely, the glorification of fascism and Nazism, and the incitement of anti-Semitism and racism. The organization is of a Gioventù Nazionale's political stance, during its gatherings, encourages and does not censor such behavior in any way, revealing a strong dissonance between its public attitude and that adopted within Gioventù Nazionale and the Fratelli d'Italia party. On "public" occasions, the attitude of activists has changed significantly. Aware of the seriousness of their behavior, they urge other members to behave differently in front of journalists, who on some occasions—such as rock concerts featuring far-right bands (from minute 20, again in the Video Investigation Part 1)—expressly prohibit the taking of photos and videos to prevent what is happening from becoming known and documented. Ciao People takes the utmost care with regard to any content that includes minors and has specified that the investigation materials were, at the time of the investigation, securely stored within the Society's archives and have now been handed over to the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office. The recordings do not concern any private moments; no video recordings were made. For example, in rooms, inside tents, or in more private places and moments, having been limited to "group situations" and mostly taking place in outdoor locations open to the public, such as woods; The event held at XX cannot be considered private, as claimed by those involved, being a political event made possible by Gioventù Nazionale, adding that XX cannot be considered a private residence, but rather a sort of farm stay available for stays and for organizing events; To obtain an invitation to participate in the event, XX, "who from the first contact had stated that he was a journalist and wanted to collaborate with the movement's newspapers, only had to pretend to share the same values, passions, and political ideals as members of Gioventù Nazionale itself; The journalist was not invited to participate in the event because she was a friend of the other participants, but rather because of her collaboration as a journalist with Gioventù Nazionale and its affiliated newspaper, Nazione Futura. The community camp called "Cabiria" arose from the need to organize opportunities for discussion and debate among young people who shared the same ideals, as confirmed by the fact that the event was attended by young people from the Gioventù Nazionale clubs of Pinciano, Garbatella, and Montesacro—not coincidentally all under the direction of XX, who also negotiated the contract for the use of the property for the event—with the invitation extended to other members, all belonging to the same Movement. From these circumstances, it therefore emerges that the purpose of the event was not a gathering of friends, but rather the creation of an opportunity for debate, organization, education, and political exchange, as is clearly evident from the images featuring leaders and prominent members of Gioventù Nazionale. who, seated behind a sort of "lecture," address an audience of listeners through a microphone, with the tone of someone who wants to "train" and "educate"; For participation in the event, the journalist was asked to contribute a modest sixty euros, "which she paid directly to XX.The sum—theoretically sufficient to cover the cost of two nights' accommodation in a farmhouse and food for the event—leads to the presumption that it was supplemented by a contribution from Gioventù Nazionale itself, a circumstance that would strengthen the position that it was a political initiative of Gioventù Nazionale; Therefore, it is in the public interest to delve deeper into the internal dynamics of this youth movement, including the values shared by its young members. This was done in compliance with the principle of essential information, given that all participants' faces were obscured, preventing their identities from being traced, with the exception of those at the top of the Gioventù Nazionale organization, who were therefore already of considerable public importance; "Following the broadcast of the reports, the entire political class condemned what was revealed by the investigation (the Prime Minister herself declared her distance from racist, anti-Semitic, and nostalgic sentiments), which is why some leading figures of Gioventù Nazionale have reevaluated their position and therefore the public role they hold, an example being XX, who deemed it appropriate to resign from the National Youth Council. Giorgia Meloni herself, "in the interview given to reporters present in Brussels and published by Fanpage.it on June 28, 2024 (https://...), among other things, declared herself grateful for what the investigation revealed: 'I am grateful because this clearly helps me intervene.' (from minute 20) A statement which, in the writer's opinion, is also intended to underscore the political (and therefore not private) nature of the meetings." Irreversible blackout measures were adopted to protect the participants' individual identities, while on the rare occasions in which the journalist was aware of the participants' minor age, she abstained from recording them in any way from the outset. The only identifiable individuals are the adult leaders of Gioventù Nazionale, the main target of the investigation itself, "considering that, from what emerged, they were committed to training the youngest members of Gioventù Nazionale in sharing antisocial values such as racism and anti-Semitism. None of them, for obvious reasons. acted for the processing of their data, as they were the only ones potentially entitled to do so; The journalist presented herself as a journalist and always identified herself as a collaborator of Nazione Futura, a newspaper "friendly" to Gioventù Nazionale, limiting herself to slightly changing her last name to avoid being identified, while omitting to disclose the purpose of the data collection because it is clear that, had she done so, she could not have served any informative function; the recording, having been made by a person present at the events, cannot be classified as wiretapping, but is a recording between persons present whose use is legitimate when performed in the exercise of the right to report; The claim in the complaint that the data collected refers to unknown individuals is questionable, "considering that Messrs. XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, XX, and XX are all GN executives, some in senior roles." None of the interested parties are recognizable in the video, therefore the legal standing of the interested parties is excluded. same; SEEN the note dated September 20, 2024, in which the interested parties, in providing their responses to the data controllers' responses, observed that: In response to the objection raised by the data controllers regarding the lack of legal standing of the interested parties as they were not identifiable, the affidavits of Mr. and Mrs. XX were filed, in which they attested to their presence at "XX" and to their being filmed during the service, indicating the time of such filming; The data collection activity involved personal data in addition to that disclosed – but, in any case, potentially discloseable – therefore, the affidavits of XX, Mr. XX, Mrs. XX, in her capacity as parent exercising parental authority over XX, and Mrs. XX, in her capacity as parent exercising parental authority over XX, were also filed. These affidavits account for the participation of the aforementioned individuals in the meeting organized at "XX," despite not being classified as services; Ciaopeople attempts to justify the lawfulness of the collection and subsequent disclosure of personal data by citing the alleged public interest of the information and the alleged essential nature of the processing, without ever invoking Article 3 of the Rules of Ethics, which protects the home; The distinction between a private place and a place open to the public lies neither in the nature of the activities taking place there nor in the number of participants, but exclusively in the circumstance that meetings in a private place are reserved for a certain number of people who access them based on the invitation of the holder of the jus excludendi alios. Otherwise, the essential core of the right proclaimed by Article 14 of the Constitution, which consists both in the ability to prevent access to outsiders and in the right to enjoy a sphere of privacy, consisting in the impossibility of being perceived from the outside even independently of physical intrusion, is also incorrect; Ciao People's statement that "the filming is not were filmed in a private location, considering that most of them took place in outdoor locations open to the public (such as woods)," and this is because viewing the report shows that the filming was also done indoors; in any case, the filming "in outdoor locations open to the public" is tainted by the violation of the domicile originally committed by XX, who had unlawfully entered the "XX"; Furthermore, with regard to the objection raised by La7 according to which, in this case, there is a lack of a stable connection between the place where the event took place and the complainants – required by the Supreme Court for the purposes of constituting a place as a domicile – it must be said that the complainants' stay in the "XX" for a period of three days is capable of "establishing that situation of connection between place and person characterized by stability, "even if understood in a relative sense," which the Supreme Court deems essential for the integration of the concept of domicile and/or private "residence"; the violation of the journalist's identification obligation (Article 2 of the Rules of Ethics) and the protection of domicile pursuant to Article 3 of the same Rules are closely related, as the journalist's misrepresentation of the good faith of those who had access to the XX would have fundamentally undermined the will and freedom of choice of those individuals in including or excluding the journalist, arguing that the right to report cannot serve to exonerate the conduct of those who, in gathering news, commit crimes; the complaint does not pursue censorship purposes, as it does not concern "the report in its entirety, but only those limited parts in relation to which the aforementioned interests were harmed"; CONSIDERING the note dated January 22, 2025, in which the Authority requested Ciao People S.r.l. to disclose the information available to the company regarding any criminal proceedings initiated by the competent Prosecutor's Office. following the request for the delivery of the videos; SEEN the communication of January 23, 2025, in which Ciao People S.r.l. declared that, following the request for the transmission of the full copy of the video by the competent prosecutor's office, "it has not received any further requests and/or notices and currently does not have any further information regarding the aforementioned criminal proceedings"; SEEN the note of April 11, 2025, in which the Authority asked Ciao People S.r.l. for further information regarding the methods by which the journalist who wrote the article, XX, came into contact with the organizers of the Cabiria event—namely, whether they were aware of her profession and whether she was asked for any references in order to join the Movement—whether the videos held by the Company contain additional images, in addition to those indicated in the complaint, attributable to the interested parties, and whether such material is still in the possession of the Public Prosecutor's Office; SEEN the note of April 18, 2025, in which Ciao People S.r.l. declared the following: On September 29, 2023, during the "Italian Conservatism" conference organized by the think tank Nazione Futura, the journalist and author of the article, XX, introduced herself to some Gioventù Nazionale activists using the pseudonym "XX," openly declaring, from the first contact, that she was a journalist and wanted to collaborate with the Movement's newspapers; On January 9, 2024, after participating in several demonstrations related to that political area, the journalist was contacted by telephone by the local leader of the Movement, who officially invited her to join the Movement's militancy; the invitation was then renewed via WhatsApp on January 16, 2024 by XX, then XX; Precisely by virtue of this journalistic collaboration with the Movement and its "affiliated" newspaper Nazione Futura, XX invited her several times, through written and voice messages exchanged between the March 27 and April 18, 2024, to participate in the so-called "community camp" called Cabiria; On that occasion, she was asked to help organize the event by taking photos and videos to be published on the Movement's official social media channels, which she did shortly after they were shot; The Movement was aware of XX's journalistic career, but initially no references were requested for collaboration with the newspaper Nazione Futura; The invitation to collaborate with the aforementioned newspaper came directly from its Vice President on September 29, 2023, shortly after meeting the journalist, and only subsequently, and solely to further develop her skills, was she asked to submit her CV; Among the Gioventù Nazionale activists were young men and women who collaborate or have collaborated with Nazione Futura, writing articles or participating in its events; The videos do not contain any images other than those indicated in the complaint that can be traced back to the individuals involved, and we are not aware of any subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings cited in the response of January 23, 2025, even though the investigation materials are still in the possession of the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office; NOTING that – as repeatedly maintained by the Authority – in order to reconcile individual rights (particularly the right to privacy) with freedom of expression, the legislation on the protection of personal data provides specific guarantees and precautions in the case of processing carried out for journalistic purposes, confirming their lawfulness, even when carried out without the consent of the data subjects, provided that they are carried out in compliance with the rights, fundamental freedoms, and dignity of the individual.of the persons to whom the processed data refers (see Articles 136 et seq. and Article 102, paragraph 2, letter a), of the Code) and provided that they are carried out in compliance with the principle of materiality of information regarding matters of public interest (Article 6 of the Rules of Ethics); CONSIDERING that the competent Public Prosecutor's Office has initiated an investigation against persons unknown regarding the events that occurred, requesting Ciao People for a full copy of the video released, without, however, sending, based on the statements made by the company, any information to the latter that would suggest the initiation of proceedings against the editor-in-chief of the newspaper or the journalist who conducted the investigation; NOTED, with reference to the request to remove the content of the two videos cited above and released by Ciao People S.r.l. and, with regard to the first, also by La7 S.p.A. Corresponding to the footage of the "Cabiria" event, which: - Gioventù Nazionale is an organization comprised of young people between the ages of 14 and 32 who, as stated in its statute, "identify with the goals of the Fratelli d'Italia-Alleanza Nazionale party association," with which there is an ideological connection and multi-level coordination between the Movement's top leadership and the internal divisions of the Fratelli d'Italia organization at the provincial, regional, and national levels; - The video investigation at issue in this case, produced by the newspaper "Fanpage.it," aims to document the attitudes, which appear to be inspired by Nazi-fascist and anti-democratic ideology, adopted by both members and leaders of Gioventù Nazionale and manifested during various events organized by the Movement itself; - What was particularly highlighted within the report was the existence of a significant divergence between the conduct of members during the aforementioned meetings and that adopted in public circumstances based on specific instructions provided by the organizers; - Among the events documented in the investigation is also the event known as "Cabiria," which took place between April 19 and 21, 2024, at the "XX" facility. Given its characteristics and the presence of Gioventù Nazionale leaders—specifically, XX and XX, identified by the complainants themselves as among the event's organizers—it does not appear to be a mere gathering of friends, but rather a moment of debate and political discussion; The investigation is therefore of public relevance, confirmed by the reactions, including political ones, following its release, as well as by the complainants themselves, who did not request its entire removal, but limited their requests to specific minutes of the report coinciding with what was filmed within XX (specifically, for the first report, from XX to XX, with reference to minutes XX; XX: XX-XX; XX-XX; XX-XX; XX-XX; XX-XX; XX-XX; XX-XX; as for the second report, published only by Ciaopeople, the second minutes X, XX, XX, XX, XX; from minute XX to XX; minute XX; from minute XX to minute XX; from minute XX to XX); It should be noted, however, that only some of the sections indicated in the complaint contain images that, despite having been originally obscured, are attributable to two of the complainants, who have in fact stated that they recognized themselves in them (namely, XX, who stated that he was present at minute XX of the first video, and XX, who stated that she was visible from behind from minute XX to minute XX of the first video); - the other data subjects who filed a complaint, including two minors, are not depicted in the report, and their data is not present in the videos available to the company, which has in fact made a specific statement confirming this fact; - viewing of the fragments indicated by the two complainants—pictured in an external environment and in group settings—does not reveal any elements that would allow, in light of the obscuring carried out by the data controllers, their identification, given that there is no additional data, such as their voice, that would allow even indirect recognition; - the only identifiable individuals in the report are those holding senior positions in the Gioventù Nazionale movement, namely XX and XX, who are not among the complainants and who, as can also be deduced from their conduct during the event, were responsible for its organization (from selecting the location to managing the activities); - regarding the alleged trespassing—which, based on the complainants' objections, was allegedly committed by the journalist in order to participate in the event, thus undermining the lawfulness of the subsequent data collection activity—the evidence emerging during the proceedings is not sufficient to confirm this circumstance and therefore the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Rules of Ethics concerning the Processing of Data in Journalistic Activities; - First of all, it should be noted that the location where the event took place does not appear to be a private residence, and therefore does not fall within the commonly understood concept of domicile, as it is a hospitality facility that the owner granted on loan for use under a specific contract to XX, national leader of Gioventù Nazionale; - the building, both due to its intended purpose and the nature of the event hosted, does not appear to meet the requirements of domicile as a private residence. To be such, and based on what is also established by the case law, this requires stability, that is, a continuous relationship between the person and the location, capable of making the latter an extension of the former, thereby excluding places where occasional activities take place; - the location in question cannot therefore be considered the domicile of any of the complainants, who were there with other people as participants in an event for which, according to the information provided by Ciao People, they paid a fee, albeit a small one, for accommodation expenses; - It must also be considered that the journalist did not have to act forcefully or covertly to gain access to the "Cabiria" event, and therefore to the XX, having been invited by one of the promoters (XX), having participated in a series of the Movement's events during which she was able to obtain the information that later flowed into the story. From what emerged during the proceedings, she was asked to contribute to the organization of the event by taking photos and videos to be subsequently published on the Movement's official social media channels, which, according to Ciao People, she did. The only measure used by the journalist was to slightly change her name (transforming it from XX to XX) to avoid being identified, omitting to disclose the purpose of the data collection in order to perform the informational function that she would not have been able to perform otherwise. In the story, she limited herself to the narration of moments deemed relevant to the public interest, excluding moments of private life. Finally, it should be noted that, based on Ciao People's statements in the supplementary information request submitted by the Authority, the newspaper close to the Movement asked the journalist for a CV after the start of the collaboration, which could have been used to identify any anomalies, even simply by conducting online searches where various images and information about her are available; CONSIDERING, in light of the reasons set out above, that the complaint must be declared unfounded; CONSIDERING the documentation in the file; CONSIDERING the observations made pursuant to Article 15 of the Guarantor's Regulation No. 1/2000; RAPPORTEUR: Professor Pasquale Stanzione; NOW CONSIDERING ALL THE FOREGOING, THE GUARANTOR pursuant to Articles 57, paragraph 1, letter f), declares the complaint unfounded. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, as well as Articles 152 of the Code and 10 of Legislative Decree no. 150 of September 1, 2011, an appeal against this provision may be lodged with the ordinary judicial authority, with an appeal filed either with the court of the place where the data controller resides or has its registered office or with the court of the place of residence of the interested party within thirty days from the date of notification of the provision itself, or sixty days if the appellant resides abroad. Rome, September 25, 2025 THE PRESIDENT Stanzione THE REPORTER Stanzione THE SECRETARY GENERAL Fanizza
