Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The data protection regulations do not prevent the complainant from communicating the information he requests, regarding access to his clinical history, including the identity of the professionals, rank and professional category, who have accessed it.

It is appropriate to warn the City Council, since it did not duly inform about the treatment of images captured by video surveillance cameras installed in the control points of access to restricted traffic areas, since, apart from the information contained in the information posters, in the complementary information that was available on the website of the consistory, the City Council did not inform about the right to file a claim provided to this Authority, and all extremes

The claimant complained that the PGD had not responded to their requests for data deletion (4 in total) within the period of the legally provided month for this purpose. The complaint filed against the PGD is estimated, since it did not respond in time to its 4 requests, no pronouncement is made regarding the substance of the claim, since the PGD resolved to estimate the requests for deletion submitted by the claimant.

The claiming entity has not accredited that it has responded to the request for rectification exercised by the claimant.

It is appropriate to estimate the claim, since the ICS did not respond in time to the request of the claimant. Regarding the fund, it is not appropriate to make any pronouncement or require any action, since the ICS has accredited that it has delivered the documentation to the claimant in the requested terms, that is, it has made effective the right exercised by the claimant, although extemporaneously.

The claim for disregard of the right to delete data contained in shared folders in the workplace, to which the claimant now has no access, and which include personal emails, is estimated.

The company did not duly inform about the processing of images for video surveillance purposes. The company has accredited that, as a result of the request for information made within the framework of this research phase, it replaced the information poster of the existence of video surveillance cameras placed at the entrance door of the residence, and placed information posters on each of the floors that had unsignposted video cameras.

One person reported that he had received a call from a call centre for the purposes of COVID-19 vaccination, in which he was asked why he did not want to be vaccinated, and was informed that the call would be recorded. The Authority processed a sanctioning procedure against the Department of Health, who was warned for not having fulfilled the duty of information provided for in art. 13 RGPD. At the same time, he filed the rest of the reported facts, since, on the one hand, it was found that the call had been made by SEMSA, on behalf of the CatSalut, to whom the Department had commissioned to make those calls; and on the other hand, it was found that the collection of the reason for not wanting to be vaccinated (by free will) was protected by the applicable health regulations.

Apart from the information contained in the information posters, the residence did not make available to the affected people all the information provided for in article 13 GDPR.

The person making the claim asked the DGP for access to his personal data contained in the files of the information systems of the Generalitat Police (SIP PF and SIP PFMEN). The claim presented by the person making the claim is appreciated, given that the DGP did not respond to his request in time and no action is required from the DGP, given that he responded in accordance with the law to the request of the claimant person