Result of the resolution: Upheld
The 2 claims of access accumulated since they did not attend to themselves in deadline are loved, and also from an optics in the background since the given answer for the responsible for the treatment did not fit to the LOPD, motive for which is required it to to give answer taking into account the considerations made about the possible interest superior of the minor (son of the here complaining). Applied articles: Art. 30.2 RLOPD, 10.d) Law 12/2007, 11.2.d) HIM 1/1996, 5.2, 7.3 and 17 Law 14/2010, 236-18.2.c) CCCat