Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

It is appropriate to warn the City Council, since it did not duly inform about the treatment of images captured by video surveillance cameras installed in the control points of access to restricted traffic areas, since, apart from the information contained in the information posters, in the complementary information that was available on the website of the consistory, the City Council did not inform about the right to file a claim provided to this Authority, and all extremes

The City Council should be reprimanded for 1) capturing images of public roads through the video surveillance camera system located on container islands that were not closed or delimited; and 2) process the images captured by this video surveillance system located on public roads, to exercise the sanctioning power against residents of the municipality. There is a medial concurrence between both infractions, but only the main infraction should be sanctioned, which is the violation of the principle of legality regarding the installation of a video surveillance system on public roads.

The company did not duly inform about the processing of images for video surveillance purposes. The company has accredited that, as a result of the request for information made within the framework of this research phase, it replaced the information poster of the existence of video surveillance cameras placed at the entrance door of the residence, and placed information posters on each of the floors that had unsignposted video cameras.

Apart from the information contained in the information posters, the residence did not make available to the affected people all the information provided for in article 13 GDPR.

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.

The City Council put into operation and keep the system of fixed video surveillance cameras active in the municipality, without having obtained the prior authorization of the General Directorate of Citizen Security.

The City Council in relation to video surveillance cameras for traffic control purposes installed in the municipality, did not make the right of information fully effective, since it did not make available to those affected all the information that is collected in article 13 of the RGPD.

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.