Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

It resolves to sanction the City Council as responsible for three infringements: 1) lack of contract for the processor or equivalent document, 2) lack of information on the ends provided for in art.

Disapproval of the claim of guardianship by right to delete a report and other data from the clinical history on the grounds of the optional person.

The claimant requested the removal of certain records of his clinical history which he considered incorrect. It is necessary to partially estimate the claim, since the entity gave an incomplete response, since it only referred to the deletion of any data that might appear in the clinical history of the applicant, without referring to demonstrations about the alleged falseness/incorrection of these data. The entity is required to request the amendment of the application so that the applicant can provide the proof of the alleged incorrections in the said background.

The resolution of the DGP is declared untimely, given that the right to erasure was resolved and notified beyond the 1 month deadline established for the purpose, without going into other considerations with regard to the substance, since the DGP has decided to delete the data of the complainant.

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 entity gave an incomplete response to the claimant, which only referred to the deletion of any data contained in his or her clinical history, without referring to the claimant's statements about the existence of incorrect data in a medical report.

The incorporation of the address relative to the domicile in the notifications that must be made through electronic means would be contrary to the principle of data minimization. In this case, it is necessary to adopt the appropriate measures to ensure that the program used to generate the notifications does not incorporate this personal data by default. It is also necessary to proceed with the blocking of this data in the electronic notifications already made to a working person, given their deletion request.

The resolution of the DGP is declared untimely, given that the right to erasure was resolved and notified beyond the 1 month deadline established for the purpose, without going into other considerations with regard to the substance, since the DGP has decided to delete the data of the complainant.

The resolution of the DGP is declared untimely, given that the right to erasure was resolved and notified beyond the 1 month deadline established for the purpose, without going into other considerations with regard to the substance, since the DGP has decided to delete the data of the complainant.

The resolution of the DGP is declared untimely, given that the right to erasure was resolved and notified beyond the 1 month deadline established for the purpose, without going into other considerations with regard to the substance, since the DGP has decided to delete the data of the complainant.