Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The corporate email address of a city council, since it allows the identification of the account holder, is a personal data protected by data protection regulations. The processing of personal data resulting from the sending of email messages by a public worker, in particular the inclusion of third-party corporate mail addresses and the submission to an external recipient, may be legal if a legal basis (art. 6.1 GDPR) occurs and compliance with the principle of purpose (art. 5.1.b) GDPR is met. According to the system of liability provided for in the GDPR, the responsibility for infringements of data protection regulations rests with the controllers, without prejudice to the consequences of disciplinary proceedings.

The person claiming has the right to access the information contained in the file of the provision process in which he/she has participated, excluding documentation containing specially protected personal data, as well as those identifying or other data that are unnecessary to achieve the purpose pursued. It is not justified for the person making the claim to access the information relating to applicants who have obtained a final score lower than that of the person making the claim, except for that which has been the subject of publication in accordance with current regulations.

The City Council could create a register of the residents of the municipality who, given the concurrence of certain circumstances, would require a quick action by the civil protection forces in emergency situations. The use of data from the Register for this purpose would be compatible, but the incorporation of information relating to people's health would require their explicit consent.

The sending of an e-mail to the complainant now, relating to the services of the e-certificate, is a compatible data processing with the initial purpose for which the data was collected, which was precisely for the contracting of the aforementioned certificate. So, as the requirements of Article 6.4 GDPR are met, the file of the file comes.

The City Council may use the information available to homes in respect of which there is no water consumption or people registered in the last two years, as well as data from the IBI Register relating to the owners of these homes, with the purpose of applying the surcharge provided for in Article 72.4 of the TRLHL.

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.