Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The claimant complained that the municipal company that manages the service of crane, withdrawal and deposit of vehicles of the City Council had responded in an incomplete way to its request to exercise the right of access. The claim of guardianship is estimated, since the City Council (who was responsible for the treatment) had provided in an incomplete way the information provided in sections 1st and 2nd of article 15 of the RGPD.

It resolves to punish a city council as responsible for 2 offences provided for in police regulations (LO 7/2021), which were caused by the transfer of the police station to new municipal premises: 1) it lacks the placement of video surveillance camera information posters; and 2) it lacks security measures, due to the fact that everyone has a panel of screens in which real-time images were reproduced through cameras installed in public spaces.

The complaint is shelved because there are no rational indications that the facts that have led to the initiation of the procedure have taken place. As regards the duty of information on the purpose of the treatment, compliance has been accredited.

Complaint about the publication of a photograph on the City Council's social networks, without consent. The archiving is resolved when there is no appreciation of illegality in the treatment due to the fact that the image illustrated in an accessory way information related to a citizen participation process.

The installation of a video surveillance system inside the classrooms of municipal kindergartens could be proportionate in the face of reasonable indications of the possible commission of a serious illegal act by a person working any of the children, exceptionally and for a limited time, and provided that information is provided in accordance with article 89 of the LOPDGDD. The person in charge, however, would not have sufficient legitimacy to install this system so that parents and/or legal guardians can view live images of the activities carried out by their children.

A municipal watcher photographs a vehicle with which a traffic offence is allegedly committed, in which the image of the person sitting inside is shown.

The capture, recording and diffusion of images of natural persons identified or identifiable in the municipal pavilion constitutes a processing of personal data subject to the principles and obligations of the GPD, which could be permissible for the effects of Article 6.1.f) GDPR, provided that specific guarantees are applied, specifically, in relation to the duty of information and the principle of minimisation. The responsibilities of the intervening subjects should be clarified in order to determine who is responsible for treatment, as well as the justification of the use of mechanisms based on artificial intelligence.

The whistleblower complained that the public company fired her while in trial, due to a photograph that would have been made while she was drinking during the labor break. Previous information is archived because it could not be credited that the reported company has performed any processing of the image of the complainant. There is also no evidence to indicate that the company had any interest in obtaining the photograph of the person complaining for use for the purposes described by the person complaining, that is, to motivate the termination of the working relationship.