Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The installation of a video surveillance system inside the classrooms of municipal kindergartens could be proportionate in the face of reasonable indications of the possible commission of a serious illegal act by a person working any of the children, exceptionally and for a limited time, and provided that information is provided in accordance with article 89 of the LOPDGDD. The person in charge, however, would not have sufficient legitimacy to install this system so that parents and/or legal guardians can view live images of the activities carried out by their children.

The Foundation's communication to families and students aged over 14 years of information on activities of external entities may have sufficient legal basis in the legitimate interest (art. 6.1.f) GDPR), provided that it refers to activities or entities linked to or related to the nature of the Foundation's schools, and provided that the Foundation applies the specific guarantees set out in the V Legal Foundation of this opinion.

The person here claiming complained that the City Council had not provided him with the name of persons or entities that had provided the social services with a report issued by a court advisory body (EATAF). In relation to this, the complaint is estimated to the extent that Article 15.1.g of the GPD determines that it is part of the right of access "any information available about its origin", which would therefore include reporting on the identity of the person who submitted the report (if known). However, if the City Council considers that access may be limited, nothing prevents people from being moved from what data may be affected by access, so that they make the appropriate claims.

The school spread the image of the person's daughter without the consent of the parents.

In accordance with the rules on the protection of personal data, the access of the claimant to the full content of the requested files is not justified, given the nature of the personal information of the files and the persons affected. This is without prejudice to the provision of anonymised or pseudonymized information which allows the calculations made in each case to be verified and verified, without allowing the identification or re-identification of the persons affected.

The communication of data from the clinical history of a minor to the ABSS may have sufficient authorization (e.g. arts. 6.1.e) and 9.2.h) RGPD, in relation to the LSS and the LDOIA), with the purpose of caring for the child and assessing and managing their risk situation, and always in accordance with the principle of minimization. For these purposes, it is justified to ask for proof of the identity of the claimant.

Given the configuration of the right of opposition (art. 21 RGPD), it is not essential that the center addresses the minor to ask him to specify or justify his request, for the purposes of making a decision on the exercise of this right. This is without prejudice to the fact that, although not mandatory, the center may request additional information from the minor. With the information available, in a case such as the one raised, the existence of compelling legitimate reasons, specified in the rights and obligations of the holders of parental authority and in the repercussions that this may have on the provision of adequate assistance, always for the benefit of the child, it may justify maintaining the mother's access to medical history data.

It is archived to the extent that there is no evidence that the data disclosed by the school's management to third persons - in the event of such a revelation - relating to a lower student in the centre and his mother, had as their origin information the address had on the basis of their office. On the contrary, it is credited that controversial information had been widely disseminated through media and social media.

The consent of the minor as a juridical basis that fits out the treatment of its|his|her|their data in the area of the rest|subtraction research subject to the regulations regulatory of the autonomy of the patient regarding the informed consent, that is, will be able to concede its|his|her|their consent in so far as the minor is competent, intellectually and emotionally, to understand|include the scope of the intervention about the health itself, and especially when he|it is emancipated or biggest of sixteen years. Otherwise, the assistance is required from the representative, having listened to it|him previously, in any case, if it|he|she is biggest of twelve years. In the case of the biomedical research, since the applicable regulations require the adult age to be able to loan the consent, the minors who are biggest of 14 years cannot loan the foreseen consent to the regulations of data protection. The titular persons of the parental authority or the tutors will have to make it in its|his|her|their place.