Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

Resolution is issued, we imput the principle of accuracy given that a resolution is notified executively in a postal address corresponding to another vehicle of the person concerned; and not in the postal address that is specifically linked to the vehicle sanctioned in the registers of the DGT and that is the correct one in accordance with Article 90 of the LLei transit.

A final resolution is issued, in violation of the principle of accuracy. The IMA notified a provision for mandatory execution in a domicile that had been in its own database since 2007, bypassing the domicile provided by the administration that imposed the sanction, transit, and which is in the DGT database. In addition, it uses a third address, which appears on a payment letter attached to the provision, which has also been in its own database (since 1997), for another vehicle. The facts charged constitute a violation of the principle of accuracy, for having circumvented the implementing regulation in relation to notifications of traffic fines, Article 90 Traffic Law.

A municipal watcher photographs a vehicle with which a traffic offence is allegedly committed, in which the image of the person sitting inside is shown.

Indra, in his capacity as sub-processor, did not apply the basic level security measures required by SocMobility in the treatment processor's contract, to ensure a safety level appropriate to the risk (thus to prevent unauthorised persons from accessing these data), since the T-Mobility access portal did not modify the password that the manufacturer of the "Liferay" undercuture assigns to the admin, so that access was opened, and in turn accessible to third parties.

SocMobility (processing controller) did not adequately determine the appropriate security measures to guarantee a safety level appropriate to the risk of the data processing entrusted to Indra (those who are in charge of processing) for the implementation and management of the T-Mobility card, while in the processing order contract the SocMobility entity indicated to Indra that the security measures it had to implement for the provision of the services being commissioned were of the basic level, i.e. it categorized the system as basic, when according to the concurrent circumstances in the processing being commissioned, the basic level was not sufficient.

The complaint is shelved because of the documentation provided by the SLT Department it is noted that it was the same person who, in the framework of a public health sanction procedure, communicated and authorised the data on the 'professional' mobile phone where he received electronic notification of the motion for a resolution of that procedure.

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.

The claimant had exercised the right of access to the minutes of agreement of the sanctioning procedure that had been initiated, so he was requesting a document related to his personal information.