Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

It is decided to admonise the Department of Justice, Rights and Memory since, as of 02/02/2023, when the Organic Law 7/2021, on the protection of personal data processed in the enforcement of criminal sanctions, was already fully applicable, the Department did not provide the prison population with all the information provided for in art. In this regard, no corrective measures are required since, in the letter of allegations that the Department has submitted to the Authority, it claims to have updated the right of information it provides to the prison population when entering a prison, in accordance with the IT 7/2021. In this regard, the entity has provided a copy of the right of information signed by persons who have entered prison during February and March 2023, and it is noted that these are already adapted to the IT 7/2021.

The claimant requested the right of access to his data (copy of medical documentation and medical record). The Department replied to him within a deadline, although there is no record of him providing the requested information. Following the reiteration of his request on two more occasions, the Department tried to submit all the requested documentation, but the complainant refused to receive it. The complaint is dismissed on the grounds that the Department would have fulfilled its obligation, even if the person refused to receive the requested documentation.

The complainant's complaint about the alleged loss of an excellent document containing the computation of the extra hours performed by PHPT workers is shelved, since the Department of Justice reports that it still retains the file in which workers' overtime is collected, and that these, moreover, since 2017, have been included in the computer system used for personnel management (SIPC).

The claimant has the right to access the report produced by the Treatment Board in which it was proposed to deny the degree progression of the internal claimant here, which was provided in an extemporaneous manner.

The request of the local company, to the banking entities, for the identification data of the persons who have made bank transfers for the payment of funeral rights of which the updated ownership is not stated may be covered by the legal basis. of Article 6.1.e) of the RGPD. With regard to the data relating to the telephone number and e-mail address of the person who made the payment, once their identity is known, it is considered compatible to use the contact details that the same entity has for the management. other funeral rights, as well as the possibility of contacting the person concerned using the data contained in the Municipal Register of Inhabitants or in the INE databases, so that it is the affected person who faciliti. Ultimately, and in a subsidiary manner with regard to the avenues just set out, the communication by banks of the contact details of the persons who have made the payments may be considered compatible if they are previously guarantees the right of the person concerned to oppose it.

La utilització per part de la Unitat de RRHH de les dades prèviament facilitades per un/a empleat/ada públic/a en una sol·licitud de compatibilitat, per dur a terme determinades actuacions tendents a comprovar uns fets que podrien constituir una infracció disciplinaria, i sustentar així la iniciació d'una informació reservada, seria una actuació que no contravindria la normativa de protecció de dades, en la mesura que hi concorreria una base jurídica que legitimaria el dit tractament.

Per altra banda, no hi ha cap evidència que la Unitat de RRHH permetés que persones no autoritzades accedissin a la informació relativa a la denegació de compatibilitat, per la qual cosa s'arxiva en base al principi de presumpció d'innocència.

The utilization on the part of the Unit of RRHH of the data previously facilitated for un/a empleat/ada públic/a in a request of accounting, to carry out determinate performances|actions tendents to checking out some facts that could|might constitute an offense it|he|she would discipline, and to sustain like this the initiation of a reserved information, it would be a performance|action that it|he|she did not contravene the regulations of data protection, in so far as a juridical basis that would legitimate this treatment would meet at it.

On the other hand, there is not any evidence that the Unit of RRHH allowed the information related to the denial of accounting that non authorized persons accessed, for which is filed with regard to the principle|beginning of presumption of innocence.

Within the framework of the performances|actions of research has not been able to be proved that he have he|she|it starts the catchment of images before of obtaining the preceptive authorization|accreditation issued by the titular person from the general Secretary's Office of the Department of Justice; not even either that the images picked up have been used by the object camera of complaint|denunciation with until of work control. The location of the informative posters of the existence of the cameras depends on the nature and the structure of the videovigilada zone.