Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

Since the system of videovigilància would mean the catchment of images of persons and of vehicles to the public way, the LOPD does not give the Town Council sufficient habilitation to install this system on the public way, which they have to carry out necessarily the forces and security corps. Since it seems that the town does not have local policeman, the Town Council could not install the system of videovigilància either on the public way with regard to the forecasts of the organic Law 4/1997, of videovigilància (LOV). So that the catchment of persons images in places public, open or closed, for entities different to the forces and security corps can be considered legitimate, it will be necessary that the supposition of the article 42.2 of the Law of private security (LSP) is given, and that is made in the terms and conditions foreseen in the specific regulations.

The deadline of conservation of 90 years of the reports in order to exercise the law of information on the part of the affected one, can be considered reasonable and suitable, taking into account the principle of quality in the conservation (art. 4 LOPD). It is recommended to offer the affected ones a mechanism that allows them to have a certain capacity of decision about the conservation or not of its own data, without harm of that documentation that the Administration has to preserve. The generic invocation to the interest posible of the documental series for the purpose of historical research, cannot be considered sufficient to preserve, all the available information, without more filters the sensitive information contained in the reports attended to. Once established which information enough entity has to be preserved with this purpose, it will be necessary to apply the general rule of anonimització or dissociation of the personal information, or to request the corresponding authorization for its complete conservation (art. 9.2 RLOPD).

The stay proceeds when it cannot be discarded that the illicit catchment of the images had been produced once the offense was already prescribed when the agreement of beginning of the present sanctionative procedure was notified; and when can the commission of the imputed facts, related to the modification of the field of vision of one of the cameras to pick up images of persons on the public way, not be accredited in a sufficient way. Applied articles: 47 LOPD

The claim is loved because the responsible for the file has to resolve about the request of opposition in the maximum deadline of ten days. Regarding the background, he loves itself because the treatment that the affected one is used against would be illicit. Applied articles: 6.4, 6.1, 6.2 and 4 LOPD

The claim is loved because the responsible for the file has to resolve about the request of cancellation in the maximum deadline of ten days. Regarding the background, he loves itself because the collected data would have retired with breach of the LOPD, and its cancellation therefore proceeds. Applied articles: Art. 16.2 LOPD and 32 RLOPD

The resolution for formal motives is loved, since the Town Council would not have given answer to the request of opposition in the statutorily established deadline. It does not proceed to require to the Town Council, since he has already proceeded to eliminating the object data of controversy from the municipal web. Applied articles: Art. 6.4 and 35 LOPD

A university can hand over information about the obtained qualifications for a person who did its studies at a professional school there, in order to control a possible event of professional infiltration, whenever it is a matter of the school in which this person is registered in the professional association and it is made on the occasion of a disciplinary report against its person. If is not there registered in the professional association, the professional school should put these facts in knowledge of the Administration of the Generalitat, to the effects of adopting the necessary mesure for correcting the behavior of professional infiltration.

Since the system of videovigilància will entail the catchment of images of persons and of vehicles in the public way, the LOPD does not give the Town Council sufficient habilitation to install this system on the public way, which they have to carry out necessarily the forces and security corps. Since the town does not have local police, the Town Council would not be able either at present to install videovigilància on the public way with regard to the forecasts of the organic Law 4/1997, of videovigilància (LOV). So that the catchment of persons images in places public, open or closed, for entities different to the forces and security corps, can be considered legitimate, it will be necessary that the supposition of the article 42.2 of the Law of private security (LSP) is given, and that it is made in the foreseen terms and conditions in the specific regulations.

The recording of the conversation of a member of the team of government for a citizen in principle requires the previous consent of the affected one. However, it could be legitimated if it is made in order to use it with occasion of the demand of responsibilities. The diffusion, without consent, of this conversation could be legitimated when the recorded information is truthful, given public significance has the object matter of the information or the implicated person, and its diffusion is proportionate to the general interest that justifies.

In first place, it is considered that the imputed entity would have harmed the principle of confidentiality of the data, since several persons who loaned the entity service accessed the clinical history of the accusing person without this access being justified by any welfare reason. In second place, the entity harmed the safety measure related to the register of accesses, by lack of periodic auditings in relation to this register. Applied articles: Art. 10, 9, 44.3.d) and 44.3.h) LOPD; 103 RLOPD