Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The claim of opposition is loved because, in spite of having answered the request in the deadline of 10 foreseen ones to the effect, cash was not made the law even once passed the mentioned deadline. It does not proceed to require to the University since it has already dispublished the controversial documents. Applied articles: Art. 35 RLOPD

The claim of protection is loved for not having solved in the deadline of 10 days established to the effect, without it proceeding to require the Town Council because it informed the claimant of his depublishing the document, and it has been checked out that effectively it has been made. Applied articles: Art. 35 RLOPD

The claim is loved since, even though the University solved the right of opposition in the established deadline to the effect, he did not make him cash even the 10 foreseen days gone by statutorily. Applied articles: Art. 35 RLOPD

The claim is loved since the Department of Education did not answer the request of opposition in deadline, in spite of having proceeded to the elimination of the object data of controversy. Applied articles: Art. 6.4 and 18 LOPD and Art. 34 and 35 RLOPD

The claim is estimated in that referring to the EAPC upward of opposition, since he resolved making cash for him the one right but out of the deadline of 10 days and is rejected with respect to the Education Department, for not having shown the request before the responsible for the file. Applied articles: art. 6.4 LOPD; and 25 and 35 RLOPD

The claim for formal reasons loves itself, since the Autonomous University of Barcelona resolved about the request upward of opposition, overcome the 10 days established statutorily to the effect. As for the background is rejected because when it requested itself the withdrawal from internet the list of accepted and excluded provisional it was still open the deadline of allegations and therefore the publication had to be maintained. Applied articles: Art. 35 RLOPD

The claim of protection is loved for not having solved in the deadline of 10 days established to the effect, without it proceeding to require the Town Council because it informed the claimant of his depublishing the document, and it has been checked out that effectively it has been made. Applied articles: Art. 35 RLOPD

The claim for formal reasons is loved, since the Autonomous University of Barcelona did not give answer in the 10 days established statutorily to the effect. As for the background is rejected because when the withdrawal from internet of the list was requested of accepted and excluded definite still it was open the deadline of allegations and/or resources, therefore the publication had to be maintained. Applied articles: 35 RLOPD

The claim of rights protection is loved for reasons of form, reached that the claimed entity did not notify in deadline the resolution about the request of access. The claim regarding the background is rejected, since the claimed entity does not have data of the affected person. Applied articles: 15 LOPD; 29 RLOPD.

The diffusion to the Plenum and to the minutes published in internet of known particulars (about debts of a town councilor and others) due to the charge, without consent nor legal habilitation, constitutes a breach of the duty of secret. Applied articles: Art. 4.1 and 4.2, 11, 44.3.c), 44.3.k) LOPD