Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The complaint against the City Council is archived because the personal data of the complainant listed in a local government board agreement, which was disseminated through whatsapp among the municipality's neighbours, is information that the City Council was obliged to publish by the principle of transparency (Art. 9.1.e LTC).

The regulations on personal data protection do not prevent you from giving access to the copy of the questionnaire with the correct answers, since there are no data on the people participating in the selection process in this documentation. Given that the person requesting the personal information (the content of the two exercises with higher score), would not have taken part in the selection process or specify any other reason that could be relevant for the effects of the weighting (art. 24.2 LTC), from the The perspective of the data protection regulations do not seem sufficiently justified to disclose the requested personal information. This, unless they can take other weighting elements that are not contained in this authority and therefore cannot be assessed.

The duty to publication of the declarations of goods and patrimonial rights of the charges elect requires the previous omission of the data related to the location of the goods and those that are necessary to safeguard the privacy and the security of the headlines, the considerate data especially proteges (article 23 LTC), the data related to physical third parties (different of the declarant), like this like any other information that can figure in the respective declarations and that is unnecessary to evaluate the patrimonial situation of the public representative at the beginning and at the end of their mandate. It would be necessary to avoid in this sense, the divulging of detailed information about the lambs that an excessive interference can mean for the privacy of the affected persons.

From the point of view of the data protection it would be possible to broaden the accessible information through the Guide of Juridical Entities, as well as its diffusion in open data, with respect to the persons who occupy charges in the government organs or which have been founding of the entities registered in the Register of Juridical Entities. The access of third one to the economic memory of the annual accounts of the foundations and associations of public utility previous anonimysed of the particulars that can be evident there, unless it has the consent of the titular persons of the data, should be made.

The complaint|denunciation is filed by a supposed leak of included particulars to|in lists of selective processes, since the system of advertising used implied that they could access there a plurality of persons, not only of the Department but also all the participant persons. It|He|She is recommended to the Department that revises the system of current advertising, since it does not seem reasonable to keep a selective procedure restricted to the being.

The diffusion of identificatives data, as a result of the fulfillment of the duties to advertising established in the LCSP, should reach only the name and surnames of the bidders and adjudicators, as well as the name, surnames and charge of the public worker who intervenes in it due to the charge or functions. It is recommended, by this motive, to take the made observations into account in the section V of the judgement.

When the legislation of transparency foresees the duty to publish information to the portal of transparency or the web corporative (subsidies and public helps, authorization of accountings, formation of workers, retributiva information, administrative concessions, among others), the regulations of data protection do not prevent the publication of personal information, although it is necessary to avoid the publication of unnecessary information. When the publication derives from other rules with rank of law, he will have to be to the terms that this legislation establishes, without harm which it is necessary to respect what derives from the LOPD. The advertising of information related to "any matter of public interest (...)" (art. 8.1.m) LTC), he does not authorize to publish particulars related with this, without consent or without specific legal habilitation, and therefore in principle it will be necessary to anonymize or to dissociate the particulars.

To the effects of giving fulfillment to the duty to publish the remunerations of the high ranking officials of the article 11.1.b) LTC, it is necessary that the Town Council values, according to the characteristics typical of each of the places that the managers occupy, if the elements that would justify the purpose of public interest in the divulging of this information meet at the exposed terms in this judgement. The article 11.1.b) LTC he would fit out the publication of the nominal relation and the remunerations of the managerial charges in that the mentioned elements coincide and there would not be inconvenience from the prospect of the protection of data to its divulging. The article 9.1.f) LTC he would fit out the publication of the professional trajectory of those persons who are responsibles for organs of the corporation, in accordance with the definition of organ of the article 5 of Law 40/2015, and with independence that they are or not high ranking officials.

The systems of publication of the events that they are part of a selective process of staff portrayed to the consultation it adapts to the regulations of data protection, although it is recommended to implement determinate measures to guarantee the right to the protection of data better. The resolution of the allegations formulated with respect to the provisional list of admitted and excluded candidates has to be notified only to the persons who have formulated them. If they are solved together it is necessary to adopt measures to protect the particulars. In the case of the administrative resources, the resolution, in the exposed terms, has to be notified to all persons who have the consideration of interested.

The recording of the sessions of the Board of staff as an auxiliary mechanism to facilitate the writing of the minutes does not require the consent of the affected ones. Yes this consent is necessary for its posterior diffusion in the Intranet, without harm that those parts of the sessions that do not contain particulars that cannot be an object of diffusion can be issued in deferred. The diffusion of the minutes of the Board of staff where only the adopted agreements and the identification of the members who have taken part in the session figure is in agreement with the LOPD whenever these understand information of work nature of general interest of the workers.