An argument over something trivial, tempers flaring in the changing room, and a phone that starts recording. A scene that lasted only a few moments, yet enough to trigger a criminal complaint and bring a professional photographer from Rimini before a judge on charges of unlawful interference in private life.
The case was closed on Monday, 6 October, before preliminary hearing judge Raffaella Ceccarelli of the Rimini Court, who acquitted the defendant with the formula “because the fact does not exist”.
It all began on 7 June 2024, in the men’s changing room of the tennis and padel club on Via Forlimpopoli, in Riccione. An argument broke out between two members of the club. The reason was trivial, but the dispute quickly escalated: voices were raised and insults began to fly.
The future defendant witnessed the scene. Seeing the situation grow increasingly heated, he picked up his iPhone and started recording, capturing the shouting and words echoing through the changing room. For a split second, the footage also showed one of the two men involved, who was shirtless at the time.
The matter did not end there. The video was later forwarded via WhatsApp to several club members. One of the men involved in the argument decided to take legal action and filed a complaint on 4 September of the same year.
The photographer was charged under Article 615-bis of the Italian Criminal Code, which punishes unlawful interference in private life. Specifically, he was accused of recording images and audio relating to the man’s private sphere inside the changing room without consent, and of subsequently sharing the recording.
The defendant, represented by lawyers Alessandro Catrani and Francesca Lotti, opted for a conditional abbreviated trial. To accurately reconstruct the context in which the footage was filmed, the club’s regulations and several photographs of the changing room were entered into evidence. Testimony gathered by the defense during its own investigations was also included in the proceedings.
A significant development came at the 6 October hearing: the Prosecutor’s Office itself requested an acquittal, arguing that the act did not constitute a crime. The civil party, however, maintained the opposite position, calling for the defendant’s conviction and compensation for damages.
The judge ultimately ruled in favor of acquittal, but with an even stronger formula: the fact does not exist.
Thus concluded a case born from a few seconds of video filmed on a mobile phone, yet one that raised a far from trivial legal question: the protection of privacy within a changing room, and the boundaries within which a recording made in such a setting can carry criminal relevance.
“My colleague Lotti and I are naturally very pleased with our client’s full acquittal,” commented lawyer Alessandro Catrani. “It is a ruling that is also highly interesting from a legal standpoint, regarding the precise scope of the concept of private dwelling places and the limits on capturing, within them, video and audio recordings relating to private life through the use of visual and audio recording devices such as smartphones.”
