The information on which the search is based has been translated by a computer system without human intervention. It may contain errors in vocabulary, syntax or grammar. The translation may also produce mistakes in the searches performed.
150 results were found for your search terms Right of suppression
Cancellation of police records.
PT 24/2018
The claim of protection is loved upward of cancellation, since although the DGP required the amendment from the request of exercise upward, the notification of this requirement the DGP was made beyond the maximum deadline of 10 days that he ordered for notifying and solving the law of cancellation. Finally the DGP made the law effective, even if it was in an extemporaneous way.
02/11/2018
Cancellation of data related to police records.
The claim is loved for formal reasons, because the DGP answered the request of cancellation beyond the deadline|installment of 10 days. As for the background|bottom, in the part of denied cancellation by the DGP the claim is rejected, to consider that the denial is justified.....
22/10/2018
cancellation of police records.
PT 73/2017
The claim is loved upward of cancellation, since in the face of the demonstrations of the complaining person, the DGP has not proved the concurrence of one of the suppositions that would allow the denial, and has not attended to the reiterated requirements for the ApdCat so that it brings warehouse justificatory.
27/07/2018
Cancellation of data related to police records.
PT 13/2018
The claim is loved because the DGP answered the request of cancellation very much beyond the deadline of 10 days. As for the background, the claim is rejected to consider pertinent the denial of the cancellation of the police data of the person complaining stored in file.
18/07/2018
Cancellation of data related to police records.
PT 22/2018
The claim is loved because the DGP answered the request of cancellation beyond the deadline of 10 days. As for the background, the claim is rejected to consider pertinent the denial of the cancellation of the police data of the person complaining stored in file.
09/07/2018
Request of access to particulars
PT 9/2018
The claim of protection is rejected upward of access, because the responsible organ has solved and has notified the request of access.
12/06/2018
request of access and cancellation police records.
PT 67/2017
the claim is loved for not having given answer in the specified period to the effect, without it being necessary to make any requirement, since both rights have been made effective on the part of the DGP, although extemporàniament.
12/06/2018
Cancellation of data related to police records.
PT 59/2017
The claim is loved because the DGP answered the request of cancellation very much beyond the deadline of 10 days. As for the background, the claim is rejected to consider pertinent the denial of the cancellation of the police data of the person complaining stored in file
26/04/2018
the discourtesy of a law I ARCO it does not entail for yes same the commission of an offense of the LOPD.
IP 164/2017
Although Aqualia neglected the request of cancellation formulated by the denouncer due to not having given the Town Council immediate transfer from the request, as he should have made to act as person in charge of the treatment and not have the resolution of the requests of exercise of the rights ordered I ARCO. But this in yes same does not constitute an offense of the LOPD. And in so far as the denial of the cancellation abides by law for the fact that Aqualia treats the data necessary for the provision of the service of supply of potable water to the here denouncing, evidence that it lead to considering that the silence or aquietament of this entity in the face of the request of cancellation has prevented or hindered is not observed the exercise of the law of cancellation. Equally, the order of the treatment made by the Town Council in favor of Aqualia for the provision of the related service fits out to this entity to treat the data of the denouncer necessary for the fulfillment of the functions ordered, without its consent being necessary.
26/04/2018
the discourtesy of a law I ARCO it does not mean necessarily that an offense of the LOPD has been committed.
IP 163/2017
Although the Town Council neglected the request of cancellation formulated by the denouncer, due to not having given answer in the legally foreseen deadline, this in yes same does not constitute an offense of the LOPD. And in so far as the denial of the cancellation abides by law for the fact that the town council treats the data necessary for the provision of determinate public services, evidence that it lead to considering that the silence or aquietament of the Town Council in the face of the request of cancellation has prevented or hindered is not observed the exercise of the law of cancellation. Equally, the orders of the treatment made by the Town Council in favor of several entities for the provision of these services he authorizes them to treat data of the denouncer, without its consent being necessary.
26/04/2018
Total number of pages: 15