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.

It is appropriate to estimate the claim, since the ICS did not respond in time to the request of the claimant. Regarding the fund, it is not appropriate to make any pronouncement or require any action, since the ICS has accredited that it has delivered the documentation to the claimant in the requested terms, that is, it has made effective the right exercised by the claimant, although extemporaneously.

The person making the claim asked the DGP for access to his personal data contained in the files of the information systems of the Generalitat Police (SIP PF and SIP PFMEN). The claim presented by the person making the claim is appreciated, given that the DGP did not respond to his request in time and no action is required from the DGP, given that he responded in accordance with the law to the request of the claimant person

The right of access is estimated because the City Council responded extemporaneously and incompletely. In any case, in relation to the access to the data that would allow the identification of the persons who gave their testimony in a case of risk prevention open against the claimant, it is proposed that before giving access to this information, the City Council can transfer the request of the right of access to the affected persons so that, where appropriate, they can exercise their right of opposition to the processing of their personal data.

The right of access presented by the claimant in which he requested to access his images captured by the video surveillance cameras is estimated, to the extent that it has been verified that the City Council did not give a response to the requester. The interested party has the right to receive a response from the data controller to their request for the right of access, without prejudice to the fact that the entity is only obliged to give access to the information of the points provided for in the different sections of article 15 of the RGPD.

The complainant inmate in a penitentiary complains that the center does not provide him with the document "Summary of the inmate". The claim is estimated, given that the Department of Justice, Rights and Memory did not respond in time to the claimant's request. No pronouncement is made on the merits, since the Department of Justice has estimated the request for access.

The claim for protection of the right of access is upheld, given that the complainant exercised the request for the right of access that affected the Department of Health, CatSalut and the ICS, and that with the response given to the person complaining on 24/ 05/2023, it cannot be considered that the 3 responsible entities have made effective the right of access exercised by the complainant, since, although they did give him information about some of the data processing referring to his person, it was not a specific response regarding the rest of the data processing listed in the request. Nor was the person complaining informed of the reasons why information on some treatments is not available.

The claimant complained about the lack of attention to their rights of access and opposition that he would have exercised before the City Council, within the framework of his participation in a process of citizen participation of urban theme. The claim is estimated and the City Council is required to make effective the rights of access and opposition of the claimant and to account for this Authority.

The right of access presented by the claimant in which he requested access to the recordings of the minutes of the meeting of the City Council’s Negotiating Board is estimated, to the extent that it has been verified that the City Council did not give a response to the applicant. The interested party has the right to receive a response from the data controller to their request for the right of access, without prejudice to the fact that in this response the entity may indicate that it does not have the requested information.

The claimant complained that the municipal company that manages the service of crane, withdrawal and deposit of vehicles of the City Council had responded in an incomplete way to its request to exercise the right of access. The claim of guardianship is estimated, since the City Council (who was responsible for the treatment) had provided in an incomplete way the information provided in sections 1st and 2nd of article 15 of the RGPD.