Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The City Council is admonished to violate the principle of legality, since it is accredited that it published the results of the applicants, -identified with name and surnames-, who had not passed the psychotechnical tests and the exercises carried out within the framework of a selective process of internal promotion.

The complaint is filed by the municipal police officer who complained that the City Council had not reported the video surveillance system installed in the City Hall and in the police station located inside it, and that images captured by the cameras were later used to open a disciplinary file. It has been noted that the City Council had installed the posters in the city hall and the police station's accesses, and that they reported on the purpose of the facility's safety. In this regard, the denouncing person's behaviour, captured by video surveillance cameras and leading to the initiation of a disciplinary file, is considered to imply a breach of his or her surveillance functions, and consequently to affect the security of the building.

The complainant complains that the ITV station provided a third party with the ITV card of their vehicle. This was due to human error and the accused entity proceeded to take measures to correct the situation. Despite this, the registration of a vehicle is personal data and therefore constitutes a breach of data protection regulations.  The principle of confidentiality must be upheld.

The City Council published the list of admitted and excluded persons with identification of accepted candidates (name and surnames) in accordance with the applicable regulations and during the indispensable period to satisfy the purpose of advertising and notification, no violation of the data protection regulations is seen.

The City Council does not have sufficient empowerment to install a video monitoring system in a delimited space that is part of the public track in order to control and, if applicable, exercise sanctioning power over inactive conductions relating to the waste deposit in the collection areas. In the event of installation to control vandalism against public security, it could be considered legitimate if carried out by the local police in accordance with obtaining prior authorisation from the Directorate-General for Security Administration.

The recording of images by police forces, without prior administrative authorisation, by mobile devices, is covered by the rules governing the collection of images on the public road. This rule states that such authorisation is not necessary in cases of the utmost urgency and if the circumstances in the case prevent the aforementioned authorisation from being obtained in time, a situation that occurred in the case under consideration.

A city council is admonished as responsible for 4 infringements: 1) to capture images of the public track through cameras installed outside the micro-weapon, disproportionately (the public pathway was captured beyond what is required); 2) to use images captured for security purposes to identify the person who had not correctly deposited a residue; 3) Because the RAT does not include all prescriptive information and contains inaccurate information; and 4) To not fully inform the persons concerned.

From the point of view of personal data protection regulations, deputy mayors may receive daily news from the local police when they act in place of the mayor, in the event of a vacancy, absence or illness, or or if they are assigned a delegation of functions that requires access to this information.

The claim for formal motives is loved, since the DGP did not give answer in the legally established deadline|installment. It is not necessary to speak about the background|bottom, since, in an extemporaneous way, the DGP loved the request of cancellation of police records.