Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The regulations of data protection do not prevent the delivery to a town councilor of a copy of the relation of decrees dictated by the Town Council in former legislatures, without harm that there is concrete cases at which the need is priced by the Town Council to omit determinate personal information that for its nature he requires of special protection and the access to which can be disproportionate for the purpose of control and attributed taxation to the members of the corporation, in a suitable format to be able to attain this purpose. The direct and indiscriminate access to the complete text of all the documents (resolutions or decrees) dictated, without any temporary limitation, would not allow To the Town Council to make a suitable ponderation in order to value the town councilors the convenience to facilitate the personal information contained in the documents, task which it would be necessary to make in application of the principle of quality of the data (article 4 the LOPD).

The claim is rejected to consider pertinent the denial of the cancellation of the police data of the person complaining stored in file, without harm of making some requirements so that the existence of a legal ruling of provisional stay is noted down.

Applied articles: 4, 16, 22, 23 LOPD; 3 31 and 32 RLOPD.

The claim is rejected to consider pertinent the denial of the cancellation of the police data of the person complaining stored in file, without harm of making some requirements so that the existence of a legal ruling of provisional stay is noted down.

Applied articles: 4, 16, 22, 23 LOPD; 3 31 and 32 RLOPD.

The claim is loved because the DGP answered the request of cancellation very much beyond the deadline of 10 days. As for the background, the claim is rejected to consider pertinent the denial of the cancellation of the police data of the person complaining stored in file, without harm of making some requirements so that the existence of a legal ruling of provisional stay is noted down.

Applied articles: 4, 16, 22, 23 LOPD; 3 31 and 32 RLOPD.

The claim is loved because the claimed entity did not attend to the request of access in the deadline of a foreseen month to the effect. Once the procedure of protection started cash has been made the law of access, motive for which it does not proceed to make any requirement.

Applied articles: Ar 29 RLOPD.

The rectification of the reports of the clinical history does not proceed, since the veracity of the made annotations has not been impaired by the medical staff in its reports about factic circumstances communicated by a relative, as well as the annotations made according to its medical criterion.

Applied articles: Art. 16 LOPD and 32 RLOPD.

The present claim is loved upward from access because the organ responsible for the file would not have given the whole of the documentation requested by the person claiming, motive by which it is required so that the law is made effective.

Applied articles: 15LOPD, 30 RLOPD.

The present claim is loved because the responsible organ did not attend suitably to the request of access.

Applied articles: 15 LOPD, 27 and 29 RLOPD.

The sending of an electronic mail to a plurality of addressees without using the option of hidden copy (Cco) constitutes a severe offense, for the breach of the duty of secret.

Applied articles: Art. 10 and 44.3.d) LOPD.

The complaint is filed to consider that there is not evidence that allows to impute the hindering or impediment upward of access, in relation to the data that appear to the clinical trials that he would have taken part in.

Applied articles: 89 of the LLei 39/2015.