Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The resolution of the Directorate-General of Police which estimates the request for the deletion of personal data contained in the complainant's SIP PF file, without going into other considerations with regard to the substance, is extemporaneous, since the DGP has decided to delete its data.

Se declara extemporánea la resolución de la Dirección General de la Policía que estima la solicitud de supresión de los datos personales contenidos al fichero SIP PF de la persona reclamante, sin entrar en otras consideraciones respeto el fondo, puesto que la DGP ha resuelto suprimir sus datos.

The complainant asked the DGP to delete his police data concerning an alleged crime of usurping real estate. The response given by the DGP to the complainant is declared 'extemporaneous', given that the deadline provided in the regulations was exhausted by a large extent, for the complainant to be dictated and notified of the resolution. It does not go into the substance, since the resolution of the DGP has estimated the request to delete the data of the complainant.

The claimant focuses his claim on the cancellation of personal data relating to events that occurred while he was a minor and states that each time the police stop this data appears. The DGP has asserted that the data of the claimant was canceled when the person reached the age of majority. The response of the DGP is declared extemporaneous, where it is reported that the cancellation of the data requested by the complainant has been effective, and the claimant's right to the claimant has been disallowed from the substance.

The PDB resolution estimating the request for the deletion of the personal data contained in the claimant's SIP file is declared extemporaneous, without going into any other considerations regarding the background since the PDB has resolved to delete its personal data and the PDB is required to prove that it has notified the estimation resolution to the claimant.

The response of the PDB is declared to be extemporaneous, where it is reported that the deletion of the data requested by the claimant has been made effective. The claim of guardianship made by the claimant against the GDPR is dismissed.

The claimant requested the deletion of their data linked to training activities, and also requested that any third-party recipients be notified of the deletion of the aforementioned data. The claim of guardianship made by the claimant against the Institute of Public Security of Catalonia is dismissed, except in respect of the communication of the deletion of the data to any recipients who had previously communicated them. The ISPC is required to communicate data that has been deleted to each of the third recipients that had been previously provided, or to inform the person claiming that the deleted data had not been communicated to third parties, and within 10 days accredit the Authority that has fulfilled this requirement.

The City Council is admonished as responsible for a very serious infringement by having dealt with personal data of its Local Police agents obtained through the installation of geolocation receivers (GPS) in various police vehicles, without having previously informed them of the ends provided for in Article 13 of the GPD, including the purpose of treatment (Art. 13.1.c GDPR). In particular, with regard to this latest information (Art. 13.1.c GDPR), on the possibility of dealing with data obtained for the exercise of worker control functions (disciplinary procedure). In the initiation agreement the part of the complaint was archived regarding the use of recordings through video surveillance cameras by work control, without having previously reported them, since it is not known that through this system the City Council has treated personal data from the agent denouncing for this purpose.

This complaint is filed because there are not enough elements available to confirm that the police officer included personal data, relating to the whistleblower's mobile phone, in the police state, contrary to data protection rules.

The person denouncing, who circulated with his motorbike above the sidewalk of a street in Barcelona, reported that an urban guard had photographed, with his particular mobile phone, his DNI, his driving licence and the license plate of his vehicle, although he did not provide any evidence of these events. The City Council denied this, noting that the city guard had collected the identification data through the device provided by the City Council (PDA), for the purpose of filling the newsletter for traffic infringement, and that the processing of the complaint did not require the incorporation of photographic images. The Authority filed the complaint for lack of proof of the reported facts, considering that the demonstrations of the City Council were plausible, bearing in mind that the administrative file processed, which the City Council brought to the Authority, contained no image, and instead contained the aforementioned newsletter, which the city guard filled with the data of the complainant, in the exercise of the public functions entrusted to him.