1,349 results were found for your search terms ENTITIES
Taking into account the applicable regulations, it can be considered that there is a sufficient legal basis for the publication and dissemination of the academic qualifications of the group of university students (eg art. 6.1, sections e) and f) RGPD), without prejudice to the necessary compliance with the rest of the principles and guarantees of the data protection regulations. Given the principle of minimization, only the data necessary to comply with the intended purpose should be disseminated, taking into account the parameters and guidelines derived from the seventh additional provision of the LOPDGDD.
It is appropriate to warn the City Council, since it did not duly inform about the treatment of images captured by video surveillance cameras installed in the control points of access to restricted traffic areas, since, apart from the information contained in the information posters, in the complementary information that was available on the website of the consistory, the City Council did not inform about the right to file a claim provided to this Authority, and all extremes
The City Council should be reprimanded for 1) capturing images of public roads through the video surveillance camera system located on container islands that were not closed or delimited; and 2) process the images captured by this video surveillance system located on public roads, to exercise the sanctioning power against residents of the municipality. There is a medial concurrence between both infractions, but only the main infraction should be sanctioned, which is the violation of the principle of legality regarding the installation of a video surveillance system on public roads.
A City Council is reprimanded as being responsible for an infraction due to violation of the principle of legality, for having sent to an inspector of the Generalitat-Mossos d'Esquadra police force two instances with personal data without legal basis, specifically, before the opening of confidential information against the reporting agent, and without there being a real danger to public safety or the investigation and prosecution of a crime.
- SECTORIAL AREA
- Criminal court
- TRANSFER OR DISCLOSURE OF DATA
- Public administration
- Local administration
- Law enforcement authorities
- Public administration
- Autonomous community administration
- Local administration
- Lawfulness principle
- In the public interest or in the exercise of official authority
- Legal obligation
The claiming entity has not accredited that it has responded to the request for rectification exercised by the claimant.
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 claim for disregard of the right to delete data contained in shared folders in the workplace, to which the claimant now has no access, and which include personal emails, is estimated.
The City Council of Sant Boi de Llobregat is admonished as responsible for an infringement provided for in Article 83.5.a in relation to Article 5.1.f, both of the GDPR, for sending an email to numerous people without using the hidden copy tool.
The company did not duly inform about the processing of images for video surveillance purposes. The company has accredited that, as a result of the request for information made within the framework of this research phase, it replaced the information poster of the existence of video surveillance cameras placed at the entrance door of the residence, and placed information posters on each of the floors that had unsignposted video cameras.
The right to data protection would not prevent the claimant from accessing the requested public information that only contains aggregated data. Likewise, in view of the concurrent circumstances in the specific case, it would be justified to release pseudonymized information on the distribution of cases among the lawyers assigned to the TOAD, with an indication of the associated incidences, as well as on the invoices presented by these lawyers, for the period between 2018 and 2022. However, the information on the persons assisted by the TOAD lawyers that may be included would have to be omitted, in any case.