Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

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.

The Department of Social Rights (DDS) consulted the tax data of the complainant who was in the possession of the AEAT. This action is considered legitimate, taking into account that in accordance with Law 12/2007 and Law 2/2014 enables the DDS to consult ex officio, and without prior consent of the interested persons, the data of the beneficiaries of aid and those of their "economic unit of coexistence". The DDS has also accredited that in the forms to request aid for the dependency, an information clause is included on the possibility of consulting the data.

One person reported that he had received a call from a call centre for the purposes of COVID-19 vaccination, in which he was asked why he did not want to be vaccinated, and was informed that the call would be recorded. The Authority processed a sanctioning procedure against the Department of Health, who was warned for not having fulfilled the duty of information provided for in art. 13 RGPD. At the same time, he filed the rest of the reported facts, since, on the one hand, it was found that the call had been made by SEMSA, on behalf of the CatSalut, to whom the Department had commissioned to make those calls; and on the other hand, it was found that the collection of the reason for not wanting to be vaccinated (by free will) was protected by the applicable health regulations.

The complaint is archived, referring to the communication by an MMEE inspector to his superior of an instance and an e-mail presented to the City Council, as well as his incorporation into a disciplinary file, since that communication is framed in the functions of monitoring the inspector's police activity, which include making known his superior any statutory infringements detected in his area of competence.

The complaint is archived, referring to the communication by an MMEE inspector to his superior of an instance and an e-mail presented to the City Council, as well as his incorporation into a disciplinary file, since that communication is framed in the functions of monitoring the inspector's police activity, which include making known his superior any statutory infringements detected in his area of competence.

It is decided to archive the present complaint since the access to the clinical history of the complainant was made from a Primary Care Center, by a professional who had assigned administrative and statistical management tasks, within the framework of the National Statistical Plan (2021-2024). In this respect, it should be concluded that the aforementioned access is covered by Article 6.1e) GDPR on the exercise of public powers, in accordance with Law 12/1989 of 9 May, on the Public Statistical Function.

Una madre denunció que la escuela había pedido que el primer día del curso escolar 2021-2022 aportaran el certificado de vacunación de covid-19 de su hijo menor de edad (de 12 años o más); que el dedo certificado también se pedía al personal de la escuela, y que la escuela tenía acceso a la aplicación informática Traçacovid. La denuncia se archiva porque, si bien se cierto que inicialmente la escuela se lo pidió, antes de iniciar el curso escolar comunicó a las madres y padres de alumnos que no lo aportaran (en base a una modificación de última hora del Plan de actuación para el curso 2021‐2022 para centros educativos en el marco de la pandemia); por otro lado, también se archiva porque no hay constancia que la escuela hubiera recogido ningún certificado de vacunación, y que la escuela negó tanto que requiriera el certificado a su personal, como haber accedido a la Traçacovid, y tampoco constan indicios. Además de los motivos de archivo, se concluye que el tratamiento de datos de salud por parte de los centros educativos por motivo de la gestión de los casos positivos de covid-19, estaría amparada por los 6.1.e) y 9.2.g) y y) del RGPD.

The complainant complained about the fact that certain GU agents asked him to identify, without this action - according to the complainant - being enabled by any rule. However, the police report provided by the City Council, signed by three agents, describes the events that occurred and justifies identification for the prevention of a major conflict on the road. In this respect, it should be concluded that the processing was necessary for the exercise of public powers conferred on the controller (art. 6.1 e) GDPR) in accordance with the Organic Law for the Protection of Citizen Safety, and therefore the file of the complaint proceeds. The complainant also complained that the Lleida City Council has a register of social activists. However, in the absence of sufficient indications, and given that the accused entity has denied these facts, his file is proceeded.

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.