Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

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 person making the complaint complained of improper access to his or her medical records. It is resolved to archive the proceedings to the extent that within the framework of the prior information it has not been verified that any act that could constitute an infringement has occurred, while it has been sufficiently justified that the controversial access was carried out within the framework of the tasks assigned to the professional who carried it out.

The archiving of the actions is resolved since the reported entity has justified that the controversial access to HC3 of the complainant was caused by a typing error, within the framework of the RedCov project, in which certain parameters had to be consulted in various clinical stories.

Undue access to the HC3 of the complainant is not credited. The filing of the complaint is resolved because the complainant has accredited that the data referring to the complainant's HC3 was extracted from an opinion submitted to them by the INS.

There are four unjustifiable accesses to the HC3 of the person denouncing by staff of the Sanitary Corporation Parc Taulí de Sabadell. It resolves to admonish the Corporation as the person responsible for an infringement provided for in Article 83.5.a) in relation to Article 5.1.a), both of which are in the GDPR, for 2 undue access to the HC3 which have not been prescribed, for the violation of the basic principles for processing, specifically the principle of application.

The complaint is filed about how a Hospital carried out the transfer of documentation from a trade union section to another room inside the hospital, since that transfer was carried out without jeopardising the protection of the personal data contained there, and the security measures taken to do so were appropriate to guarantee its safety and confidentiality.

The claimant asked the ICS for access to their clinical history and traceability. The ICS responded once the one-month period foreseen for art had elapsed. The Authority's resolution states that the ICS responded extemporarily to the request for access, and regarding the information not delivered concerning traceability, the claim is partially estimated, regarding only information concerning data communications from clinical history (including any data communications to the clinical history shared in Catalonia), since the ICS' response was not clear enough to understand that he had been informed about this end. And the claim is dismissed as regards the other information included in the concept of 'traceability', as it is information that exceeds the material aspect of the right of access to data protection.

The claimant requested access to information about access to his or her clinical history (HC), and the claimed entity responded, lately, that they did not record undue access to his HC. The Authority estimates the claim of guardianship of the right of access, since the claimed entity did not provide an answer within the time frame set for the applicable law, nor did it inform him of whether data communications existed in the shared clinical history of Catalonia, or of other data communications to other recipients, whether they were external recipients to the claimed entity, or other health centers that, while belonging to the claimed entity, have information systems other than the health center assigned to the claimant.

The claimant requested access to information about access to his or her clinical history (HC), and the claimed entity responded, lately, that they did not record undue access to his HC. The Authority estimated the claim of guardianship of the right of access, since the claimed entity did not respond to it within the time frame set to the applicable law, nor did it inform it about whether data communications existed in the shared clinical history of Catalonia, or about other data communications to other recipients, whether they were external recipients to the claimed entity, or other health centers that, while belonging to the claimed entity, have information systems other than that of the health center assigned to the claimant.