Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

El responsable del tratamiento tendría que revisar el AIPD efectuada para garantizar que esta recoge tanto la información prevista en el artículo 10 de la Instrucción 1/2009, de 10 de febrero, sobre el tratamiento de datos de carácter personal mediante cámaras con fines de videovigilancia, así como el resto de requisitos establecidos por el artículo 35.7 del RGPD. La consulta previa a esta Autoridad únicamente es preceptiva cuando la AIPD muestre que el tratamiento comporta un alto riesgo si el responsable del tratamiento no toma medidas para mitigarlo.

It resolves to punish a city council as responsible for 2 offences provided for in police regulations (LO 7/2021), which were caused by the transfer of the police station to new municipal premises: 1) it lacks the placement of video surveillance camera information posters; and 2) it lacks security measures, due to the fact that everyone has a panel of screens in which real-time images were reproduced through cameras installed in public spaces.

The complaint is shelved because there are no rational indications that the facts that have led to the initiation of the procedure have taken place. As regards the duty of information on the purpose of the treatment, compliance has been accredited.

The complaint is filed by the municipal police officer who complained that the City Council had not reported the video surveillance system installed in the City Hall and in the police station located inside it, and that images captured by the cameras were later used to open a disciplinary file. It has been noted that the City Council had installed the posters in the city hall and the police station's accesses, and that they reported on the purpose of the facility's safety. In this regard, the denouncing person's behaviour, captured by video surveillance cameras and leading to the initiation of a disciplinary file, is considered to imply a breach of his or her surveillance functions, and consequently to affect the security of the building.

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.

The decision is to sanction the Foundation denounced for the use of a system of video surveillance cameras in certain rooms in the residence. In this respect, this imputed fact is considered to be a violation of the principle of minimisation insofar as such treatment is excessive for the intended purpose, and since there were other measures less intrusive to the privacy and privacy of the persons concerned.

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 treatment that is the object of the AIPD presented would go against what is established by the RGPD, given that the person responsible for the treatment does not have a legal basis that legitimizes video surveillance on public roads.

The installation of a video surveillance system in municipal property buildings intended for social rental could have as its legal basis Article 6.1.e of the GDPR, justified in the competences attributed to municipalities by local regulation and housing regulations in the field of social housing and Article 22.1 of the LOPDGDD, insofar as the system of video surveillance cameras is installed in enclosed and delimited spaces and is intended to preserve the safety of persons and goods, as well as their facilities. The controller must draw up a Memory, in the terms of Article 10 of the Instruction 1/2009, which describes in detail the characteristics of the treatment to be carried out and the weighting required to determine whether the measure exceeds the proportionality judgment. If the measure goes beyond the proportionality judgment, the city council could instruct the local police to control the cameras of the video surveillance system.