Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

With the information available, it can be concluded that the jobs of A17 officials who are not LITERate (heads of department) can be considered to be places of special trust, of special responsibility within the organisation or of high pay. Access to individualised information on the pay of public workers must, in principle, be limited to senior managers and staff as well as to staff who hold positions of special trust, of special responsibility within the organisation or high level in the hierarchy of the entity, of free designation, or who carry a high level of pay. With regard to other public workers, the public interest in controlling public activity with regard to the destination of resources could also be satisfied without sacrificing the privacy of the persons concerned in such a way that information must be provided aggregated by groups and levels of intervals. As regards the three-year period of these workers, it would be in line with data protection regulations to provide information grouped by categories or by groups and levels of intervals. It is generally not considered appropriate to data protection regulations to provide information relating to the description, chronologically speaking, of the administrative situation of an entire group of officials throughout their administrative career, whether they are management staff or special responsibility or whether it affects other groups of officials.

To determine that we are dealing with positions of special responsibility, we need to address the uniqueness of the workplace according to the functions attributed to it, the hierarchical dependency, the command functions that it has, its form of provision, etc., in accordance with the civil service regulations and the configuration of the workplace that the corresponding public entity makes. In order to determine whether a job has a high level of remuneration, consideration must be given to the salaries established for the different jobs within the public entity where it is located. In any case, in the weighting provided for in Article 24.2 of LTC both circumstances must be assessed jointly and not in isolation. Data protection regulations would not prevent access to the remuneration received and the situation of having requested or having the so-called age licence with regard to officials in Parliament who hold posts of lawyer or financial controller when they hold the posts of secretary-general, major lawyer, auditor of accounts or with regard to those in positions of trust, special responsibility or free designation of the organisation. From the point of view of data protection regulations, the resolution recognising the journalist's right of access must warn that the subsequent processing of the information obtained must respect data protection rules, but this does not exclude the freedom of information from the dissemination of certain information. The right of access to information is not limited in time. In this case, the degree of interference for the affected persons tends to be lower if it refers to periods beyond the last five years.

Members of Parliament can exercise the right of access to information held by the OAC under the right granted to them by the PRC, either by copying requested documents, or by direct consultation of information in the administrative offices with the assistance of up to two advisers accredited by the General Secretariat of Parliament. Despite the preferential nature of this right, the limits provided for in the regulation regulating the right of access to public information are applicable. Where the information contains data relating to infringements or criminal or administrative sanctions (or other data provided for in Article 23 LTC), access to this information must in principle be limited. Where it is essential to identify the persons concerned, information on the outcome of the procedures processed by the OAC may be provided with respect to the completed procedures, but access to the entire dossier must be avoided. With regard to the rest of the information, it can be given access, although under the principle of minimization it is necessary to exclude data that is unnecessary for the control function carried out by Members, in accordance with what is stated in the V Legal Foundation. The identification of the person who is the originator of his or her actions must be preserved if he or she so declares, either in the complaint or later in the hearing process granted to him or her, unless there is a judicial request.

In the face of the different requests of access that they can present the deputies, in relation to information or documents related with processes judicial, the prevalence among the right of access to the information of the deputies or personal deputies and right to the data protection has to solve to tenor of the circumstances of the case concrete, the nature of the affected particulars and the consequences taking into account that they can derive from it for the affected persons, making a ponderation among the significance of the information for the effective exercise of the functions attributed to the deputies and the foreseen limits in the legislation of transparency, in accordance with the principles and guarantees of the regulations of data protection.

The Regulations of the Parlament de Catalunya (articles 5 and 6, and article 48) it constitutes, with general character, the legal habilitation necessary for the cession, without the consent of the interested persons, of the particulars that can restrain themselves in the "registers of visits and to start off with in the Palau of the Generalitat for visits to the President (1980-2003)", to a Commission of Research of the Parliament (article 11.2.a) of the LOPD). Following the basis that the request of the Commission founds in the legitimate interest that emanates from the fulfillment of a function of conceded research in the EAC and in the Regulations of the Parliament to the Commission, and taking the nature of the requested information into account, the access can be considered adjusted at the beginning of quality, whenever the use agrees on his legitimating the access, which remains linked for the duty of secret, circumscribed to the purpose.