Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The installation of a video surveillance system inside the classrooms of municipal kindergartens could be proportionate in the face of reasonable indications of the possible commission of a serious illegal act by a person working any of the children, exceptionally and for a limited time, and provided that information is provided in accordance with article 89 of the LOPDGDD. The person in charge, however, would not have sufficient legitimacy to install this system so that parents and/or legal guardians can view live images of the activities carried out by their children.

The referral to the Court, in response to a requirement, of documentation corresponding to a person other than that identified by the Court, contravenes the duty of confidentiality.

The councilors' access to personal data included in the Municipal Register of Inhabitants may be enabled when, taking into account the specific purposes of the Register, access is necessary and provided for the development of the control functions of the activities of the municipal corporation, or other functions that may be attributed to the councilor, in the terms provided for in the LRBRL. It is not justified for the councilor to access the municipal register of inhabitants to configure the electoral program of the municipal group in relation to the tax ordinances, to perform the relevant calculations, identifying the people who are registered there.

The municipal policy for the use of digital information systems and devices must cover clear rules on the management to be made of the personalised corporate email account, and on the access to the information contained in it, both for the purpose of ceasing the employment relationship and in the event of temporary absence of the worker. It must also include specific provisions regarding the proper use of information systems by its staff and the control that the City Council can make of them to ensure their safety and good functioning. With regard to requests for access to and copying of e-mails by ex-workers, the observations made in this opinion must be taken into account.

A municipal watcher photographs a vehicle with which a traffic offence is allegedly committed, in which the image of the person sitting inside is shown.

The complainant complains that the City Council has not replied either to the right of access, or to the right of rectification in relation to the waste collection service 'door to door'. With regard to the right of access, although the claimant requested access to public information, in reality, he referred to access to his personal data; and with regard to the right of rectification, although it was initially inferred that the City Council would have complied with the right exercised by the claimant, in reality the City Council did not rectify the data relating to the claimant's postal address. The petition formulated by the claimant in relation to both rights is appreciated.

The complainant explained that the Lleida City Council would have provided a third person (the new acquirer of a license) with the document relating to the "Joint declaration of change of ownership of activities", which would contain the personal data (name, surnames, address and number of DNI) of the complainant. However, since it has not been possible during the previous information phase to prove that the communication of personal data is attributable to the Lleida City Council, as the complainant stated, it is appropriate to archive the present complaint.

The complainant complained that the City Council had provided a neighbour of its building with a document containing his personal data. He also denounces the neighbor's lawyer for having exhibited this document in an oral hearing of a trial. As regards this second fact, the AEPD was transferred. As regards the reported fact against the City Council, RA is prepared on the basis of Article 48 and 52 LJCA, on the obligation to transfer a copy of the administrative file to the court by the requested administration. Since his neighbor had filed a judicial appeal, he had access to the file to formulate suit. This access is also provided for in Article 236 LOPJ quinquies.

The complainant complained that the City Council had revealed her data to a third party (a person who ran a bar and had called her to warn her that she would take a party). He does not provide any evidence or evidence to prove that his mobile phone was indeed revealed. RA is dictated by the lack of evidence to prove the communication of the complainant's mobile phone to the third person. In addition, both the City Council and the person who called her deny that it was the City Council that had provided the data.

There is no indication that the denounced City Council is the holder of the e-mail account from which a message was sent to certain local agents, criticising trade union behaviour. In this respect, it is also inappropriate to argue that the City Council has filtered information regarding corporate electronic addresses of members of the Police Corps, since, apart from the city council workers who may obviously have access to such corporate addresses, it cannot be ruled out that third parties have obtained this information by their own means (e.g., persons who have provided services to the City Council, or citizens who have related to these public employees).