Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

RA is dictated in a case in which the complainant requested a merit assessment review (previously occupied workplaces). The City Council rectified the failure of the applicant's score, taking into account the merits of the two previous jobs. This varied the score order of the candidates, which is why those who were affected by the alteration of the score were notified. This notification to this applicant is in accordance with the law since these candidates were directly interested and affected. In addition, they had the right of access to the file of the selective process, which is why, regardless of whether the city council had notified this resolution or not, they were able to access the information.

File resolution is dictated. There is a neighborhood conflict between two colindant properties which results in an administrative procedure with cross-instances. The two sides repeat the documentation presented by the other side. In this context, the city council facilitates the writing of inheritance facilitated by the here denouncing, the other party on the basis of Articles 4 and 53 LPAC, as a legitimate interested party with the right of access to the documentation of the file.

A representative of the workers requests a town council to access the resources by municipal workers in the procedure of appraisal of the jobs and of approval of the RLT. The regulations of data protection would not block the access of the representative of the workers to the relative information the number of shown resources, the formulated allegations, which it has been the answer of the organ responsible of the procedure, and the consequences that it has had in the procedure of the report. However, and for lack of major concretion in the request of access, it would not be justified for the complete text of the resources to give access so that the affected persons could be identified directly.

The access to a report of staff selection in formality on the part of whom shows the condition of person interested in the same is governed by the regulations of administrative procedure. The terms in which this access has to be produced are those that retire in a way summarized in the foundation of law X of this judgement. The regulations of administrative procedure do not foresee to give transfer from the request of access to the rest of participants in the process, however, seem that the administrative organ responsible for the procedure agrees on the formality of audience, since this formality will allow to evaluate in a more precise way the consequences that the access can have for the affected persons, advisable. The decision of itself has to give access to what is requested to itself, even though the disagreement of the third one affected by the access has been produced, requires a ponderation of the rights and interests in game, through a motivated resolution.

The person who requests the report of reserved information would not have the condition of person interested in the foreseen terms to the regulations of administrative procedure (art. 4 and art. 53.1.a) LPAC), since the report of previous information has gone with the archive of the performances. The Town Council could only inform the accusing person about the fact that the archive of the report has been produced. Beyond this (arts. 23 and 24 LTC), it would be necessary to deny the access to the report of reserved information, unless the affected persons give its consent. Even though in principle it is not obligatory to communicate the identity of the applicant to those persons to those that the Town Council gives formality of audience (art. 31.3 LTC), in the examined case it would be convenient to give transfer from the request of access with indication of the identity of the requesting person.

The complaint is filed in that referring to the undue access on the part of a person civil servant to the I "Punto Judicial Neutro" -shop assistant of the CGPJ- in order to obtain the datum of the address that figures in the DNI from the accusing person. In the sinus of the previous information the attempt at notification of an administrative event has not been able to be proved either on the part of the Town Council to the address that appears in the DNI of the accusing person. Finally, the complaint is filed since the communication to the registrals headlines of an estate of data related to the denouncer -in particular, the initiation of a procedure of protection of the urbanistic legality, for a presumedly irregular performance provoked by the denouncer as an owner of the estate- it would be fitted out by a rule with rank of law.

The regulations of data protection would not block the access on the part of one of the participants in the selection process of object staff of consultation to the own personal information. However, the access to the particulars of the rest of persons who would have taken part in this procedure does not seem that it is necessary to attain the supposed purpose in this case.

In case the access of the claimant to the information requested (the identity of the witnesses) is brought up in the approval of an administrative procedure in formality, given its condition of interested, and views the normative forecasts (LPAC), this access could be relevant and, therefore, skill, to the effects of article 11 LOPD. In another case, to the effects of the ponderation of the article 24.2 LTC, the communication of the information that he requests the claimant is not enough justified, since it cannot be ascertained that he can bring any benefit for the public interest in the terms of the legislation of transparency and that, however, it could mean an affectation for the rights and interests of the physical persons affected.

The applicant, that it has the condition of interested, it has to have access to the identification data of the persons that they have intervened in the selection process due to its charge, to the information of the selected person who does not have consideration of especially protege, as well as to the decree of recruitment of the selected person. Regarding the data especially proteges (article 7 LOPD), and others that can give a profile of vulnerability of the affected ones, they have to remain excluded from the access, as well as the unnecessary particulars for the purpose of control of the selection process of the job. In case it is necessary to give copy of the documentation, it would be convenient to remember the duty of confidentiality with respect to the received information (article 10 LOPD), so that this cannot be used for a purpose different to the one that justifies the access (article 4 LOPD).

The person interested in a procedure of provision of jobs can access the information brought by those participants who have competed for the same square than she, without harm of eliminating, when it is proper, the sensitive data that can be evident there and/or the irrelevant data for the purpose of control of the legality of the process. In spite of the right to obtain copy from this information, for application of the principle of minimization, whenever the mere examination of the report without obtaining of copy allows to attain this purpose, this possibility should be opted for.