Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

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 City Council can keep the minutes of the plenary that are necessary to fulfill the obligations laid down in the transparency law published on the portal. In this case, the minutes of the plenary can be published in the electronic headquarters of the Administer along with the identifying data (name and surname) by reason of the charge, without including, according to the principle of minimization of the data, the publication of the manuscript signature. As for the time it is recommended to keep the full minutes published, this must be temporarily limited to the period necessary to achieve the purpose justifying the publication of the data. As regards the possible application for access to these acts, we should not anonymise the merely identifying data (name, surname) of the ex-registered person who spoke on the occasion of his or her position. As far as handwritten signature is concerned, access would not be justified.

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.

It resolves to dismiss the request of the holder because restricting access to the health data of the holder, to all administrative, IT and citizen management staff of the Health Department, who may need access to it in the performance of their duties, would seriously distort the functioning and organisation of the health system. Furthermore, to the extent that the claimant also intended that the Ministry should enforce its right of opposition "in a global way and not individually", in relation to data relating to his or her health, which is treated at all Hospitals of Catalonia and Primary Care Centers, it is decided to also dismiss this claim, insofar as the Ministry of Health is not responsible for all the treatments pointed out by the claimant.

The claimant exercised his right to object to the effects that the FUOC did not provide his personal data to (...). In this respect, this Authority cannot ignore the fact that (...) it has the status of processor of the FUOC and that, the legal basis that legitimises the submission of data to (...) is, precisely, the execution of a contract. Given that the processing of controversial personal data does not fall within the scope of Article 21 of the GDPR, in order to exercise the right of opposition, it is appropriate to reject this claim to guardianship of the right of opposition.

Since the Pere Mata Institute has reported that the personal data of the person here claiming, subject to their opposition requests, have been suppressed and therefore not subject to treatment, in this case, there is no presupposedness necessary to make this right effective, which is that the person responsible is processing data of the person who is opposed to this treatment. In these terms, it is appropriate to reject the present claim of guardianship of the law, given that the Institute Pere Mata attended to the requests from which this procedure derives, when he informed the current claimant of the deletion of his personal data dated 10/12/2021.

The CIFO Hospitalet failed to respond to any of the different requests that the complainant sent him to stop receiving publicity emails, and therefore failed to meet the opposition requests made by the person denouncing the processing of his data.

The claimant exercised the right to delete before the City Council the data he had provided for the waste collection service "door-to-door". The City Council refused to delete the data on the grounds that the treatment was necessary to fulfil a mission in the public interest based on a municipal competence. But he also stated that the only data necessary to provide the service was the address of the housing.

The inclusion in the registration certificates or flyers of the name and surnames of all the persons registered in the same address, at the request of one of the registered persons, may be protected by the consent of all the persons affected or, in the absence of consent, in the legitimate interest of the applicant, unless there are circumstances in the specific case that, after making the appropriate weighting, should lead to the prevalence of the right to the protection of personal data of the other people affected. To this end, it is of particular importance to inform the affected persons of the communication in advance of the effects that may be exercised, where appropriate, by the right of opposition.