Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The data protection regulations do not prevent the complainant from communicating the information he requests, regarding access to his clinical history, including the identity of the professionals, rank and professional category, who have accessed it.

The claimant, as holder of parental authority, exercised the right of access to the documentation presented by his underage daughter, which contained data from third parties affected who opposed the processing of data derived from the application for access, which is why the Department dismissed the request for access made by the claimant. The complaint is partially estimated as the Department responded to the request in an extemporaneous manner.

The complaint is partially appreciated, since the Directorate General of Police of the Department of the Interior did not respond in time to the request of the complainant, without it being appropriate to require any action, insofar as the DGP gave a reply adjusted to the right of request, albeit temporarily.

For the information available, in the specific case examined, from the point of view of data protection regulations, there is no problem in giving the councillor access to the dossier of the stabilisation process for municipal workers, provided that it is information strictly necessary to achieve its functions. However, with regard to personal data of special protection (Article 9 of the GDPR) that may be included, it will be necessary to limit access, so that no more data is communicated than is strictly necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose that justifies access, that is, the development of the functions corresponding to councillors. In any case, once the councillor has access to municipal information on the basis of the functions legally mandated, this must be governed by the duty of reservation imposed by the regulations of local regulations, the principle of purpose limitation (Article 5.1.b) GDPR) and the duty of integrity and confidentiality (Article 5.1.f) GDPR.

The complaint is partially estimated as the Health Department did not respond in time to the request submitted by the complaining party, which was aimed at access to traceability and HC3 for a specific period of time. However, it is not necessary to require the Department to carry out any action since the latter responded extemporaneously to the request and provided the party requesting all documentation held by it.

The resolution of the DGP which estimates the request for access to data of the complainant contained in the PF/SIP PFMEN SIP files is declared extemporaneous, without going into other considerations with regard to the substance since the DGP has decided to make the aforementioned right effective.

The complaining party initiated the present rights protection procedure before this Authority as it considered that the requested entity gave it the requested information (clinical course of visits of 12.09.22 and 21.09.22) in a manipulated manner. In this regard, it demanded access to the original annotations made by doctors doctors to the clinical course of the two reference visits. Well, in consultation with this Authority, the Hospital Clinico has stated that the information it gave to the complainant, in response to his request, is the original version of the notes that doctors made in the clinical course, and that this documentation has not been manipulated or modified. In this regard, the content of the Hospital's response was transferred to the requesting party, so that it would submit the allegations or evidence it considered relevant, warning it that, if within 10 days it did not submit any writings, it would be understood that the Hospital had fully complied with its application for access. After this period, the complaining party has argued nothing against considering their right of access satisfied, which is why it should be concluded that the information that the Hospital gave to the complainant, in response to his request, was all that was in their power. That being the case, it is appropriate to reject the complaint, because the entity gave a full response within the legally envisaged deadline, to the specific terms of the application.

The right of access that the claimant formulated to the City Council of Sant Quirze del Vallès is estimated in relation to the purpose of processing the data provided to a municipal school. The City Council alleged that the petition had not been presented in the proper way and that it referred to data from a collective.

Data protection regulations do not prevent the person from notifying the data they request, regarding access to their clinical history, including the identity of the professionals who have accessed it, in relation to the requested period.

The claimant requested the right of access to his data (copy of medical documentation and medical record). The Department replied to him within a deadline, although there is no record of him providing the requested information. Following the reiteration of his request on two more occasions, the Department tried to submit all the requested documentation, but the complainant refused to receive it. The complaint is dismissed on the grounds that the Department would have fulfilled its obligation, even if the person refused to receive the requested documentation.