Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

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.

The City Council could create a register of the residents of the municipality who, given the concurrence of certain circumstances, would require a quick action by the civil protection forces in emergency situations. The use of data from the Register for this purpose would be compatible, but the incorporation of information relating to people's health would require their explicit consent.

The sending of an e-mail to the complainant now, relating to the services of the e-certificate, is a compatible data processing with the initial purpose for which the data was collected, which was precisely for the contracting of the aforementioned certificate. So, as the requirements of Article 6.4 GDPR are met, the file of the file comes.

The City Council may use the information available to homes in respect of which there is no water consumption or people registered in the last two years, as well as data from the IBI Register relating to the owners of these homes, with the purpose of applying the surcharge provided for in Article 72.4 of the TRLHL.

A city council is admonished as responsible for 4 infringements: 1) to capture images of the public track through cameras installed outside the micro-weapon, disproportionately (the public pathway was captured beyond what is required); 2) to use images captured for security purposes to identify the person who had not correctly deposited a residue; 3) Because the RAT does not include all prescriptive information and contains inaccurate information; and 4) To not fully inform the persons concerned.

The data processing referred to in the proposed protocol under examination shall comply with the data protection regulations, without prejudice to the considerations made in this opinion and those which it may carry out, as the competent control authority for the processing of data. jurisdictional, the CGPJ. However, it is necessary to revise and modify the consent form of Annex 1 to the Protocol as set out in Section IV of the Opinion.

From the point of view of personal data protection regulations, deputy mayors may receive daily news from the local police when they act in place of the mayor, in the event of a vacancy, absence or illness, or or if they are assigned a delegation of functions that requires access to this information.