Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The regulations of protection of particulars do not prevent from giving the person claiming the relative information to the administrative titles habilitants of the constructions with respect to which he asks for itself the access, as well as the technical project and the rest of necessary documentation for the purpose of control of the urbanistic legality, without harm of omitting those particulars of the applicants or headlines of the licenses that they are not necessary to attain the pursued purpose.

The regulations of protection of particulars do not prevent from giving the person claiming the relative information to the administrative titles habilitants of the constructions with respect to which he asks for itself the access, as well as the technical project and the rest of necessary documentation for the purpose of control of the urbanistic legality, without harm of omitting those particulars of the applicants or headlines of the licenses that they are not necessary to attain the pursued purpose.

The access to the personal information related with the reports of expropriation for the determination of fair price of the affected estates by the expropriation in execution of the Modification of the Plan General Metropolità, is not considered strictly necessary to attain the purpose of transparency in the terms brought up in this supposition, reason for which it is necessary to make prevail the right to the protection of data of the affected persons.

The publication of the listing of persons beneficiaries (name and surnames), with indication of the amount of the scholarship granted to students that process studies laid compulsory (Resolution of 30 July 2015), sufficient habilitation has in rules with legal rank (LGS and LT), so that it is not necessary to have the consent of the ones affected (art. 11.2.a) LOPD). There is not sufficient legal habilitation, to the effects of the regime of data communication (art. 11.2.a) LOPD), to publish and to spread the listing of the helps for pupils with specific need of educational support (Resolution of 24 July 2015), unless the identity is preserved from the beneficiaries, given the singularity of the article 15.1.c) LTC. It is necessary to the web of the Department of Education to establish measures adapted to articulate the consultations.

The article 2.2 and 2.3 of the RLOPD orders that the Regulations are not applicable to the data processing related to juridical persons, and that the data related to individual employers, when they refer in its quality of traders, industrialists or shipowners, have to get along excluded from the regime of application of the protection of personal character data. The nature of the data that is requested related to the identification of the headlines of the license of opening of some premises destined to "camping", and the dates of opening or beginning of the activity, that refers to data linked strictly to its activity, and therefore, these would not find protected by the regulations of protection of particulars, motive by which the legitimacy of the communication of these data has to be analyzed from other rules.

The right to the data protection does not block the access, and if the obtaining of copy is proper, about the information contained to|in the bank extracts|excerpts of the accounts|bills of the Town Council, without harm of the need to eliminate the information about the numbers of accounts|bills from third parties who have correlated with the Town Council who can figure there, and of the need to make an additional ponderation in case some information that can be considered like especially protege can be evident there, that affects the personal or family privacy or that affects the security|certainty of the persons.

The diffusion made of the photograph of some minor pupils of 14 years in the bulletin of the Municipal Group would be legitimated by what orders the article 11.2.c) of the LOPD, for having extracted itself the photograph of a source of public access, how a social media of internet is, a motive by which the denounced facts are filed.

Applied articles: 3, 11, 44.3 k) LOPD

The recording of the conversation with the doctors of the ICAM, for the person subjected to medical inspection and/or its escorts, constitutes a data processing personal (art. 3 c) LOPD), that he will have to undergo the principles and duties to the regulations of data protection. The recording of the conversation in question can require, normally, the previous consent of the doctor. If the consent is not conceded, and there is not another juridical basis that can fit out the treatment, in principle this will not be legitimate, even though it cannot be discarded that in some suppositions a legitimate interest coincides that could fit out the treatment, the fulfillment of the principles and duties regrets necessary, in this case, that it imposes the regulations of data protection.

The claim is loved since the Town Council has not given answer to the request of access to information related to the affected person.

Applied articles: Art. 29 RLOPD.

In the procedure of an administrative procedure several persons had formulated allegations, and in answering to each of these persons, the Town Council included -by error- a picture with particulars of all who had made allegations, making be evident its name and surnames, complete DNI and summary of the formulated allegations, the that consitueix an offense of severe character for breach of the duty of secret.

Applied articles: 10 and 44.3.d) LOPD; and 64.2.f) Law 39/2015.