Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The Public Health Agency of Catalonia communicated to the Labour Risk Prevention Services of the Catalan company in which it provides services denouncing the list of staff who did not have the complete pattern of vaccination against COVID-19. This communication was carried out within the framework of a vaccination campaign by the Health Department. In this respect, the communication in question does not contravene data protection regulations, insofar as both occupational risk prevention regulations and public health regulations empower health authorities to establish mechanisms for collaboration with the occupational risk prevention services of private companies.

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 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.

The person claiming has the right to access the information contained in the file of the provision process in which he/she has participated, excluding documentation containing specially protected personal data, as well as those identifying or other data that are unnecessary to achieve the purpose pursued. It is not justified for the person making the claim to access the information relating to applicants who have obtained a final score lower than that of the person making the claim, except for that which has been the subject of publication in accordance with current regulations.

Personal data protection regulations do not prevent the dissemination of information relating to deceased persons. The minutes of the plenary sessions, with regard to the acts discussed, must be published in the electronic headquarters of the City Council without including specially protected data categories, or affecting honour or privacy or requiring special protection. In this case, the consent of those concerned should be made available so that the minutes can be disseminated, or the information anonymized should be disseminated. After 30 years, the provisions of Article 36 of Law 10/2001 may come into play. There is no legal basis for the dissemination, with a general scope, of the information contained in the municipal godparents of inhabitants on the city council website, without prejudice to the dissemination of the anonymized information of the godfather.

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.

Revelation of health data to the complainant's father, the age of the person at the time of the event.

It is decided to sanction Badalona Health Services for the infringement of the principle of confidentiality, since the complained entity has confirmed that a worker from Badalona Municipal Hospital, managed by Badalona Health Services S.A, would have unduly accessed a third person's clinical history. The proposed sanction is EUR 2 000.

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.