Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The complaint has been filed because it has not been possible to prove that a worker from a public service provider company, who in the course of her professional duties had access to the personal data of the complainant, within the framework of an informal conversation with a police officer, had come to identify the complainant as the person who authored an incident in the offices of the entity. Innocence presumption.

The capture, recording and diffusion of images of natural persons identified or identifiable in the municipal pavilion constitutes a processing of personal data subject to the principles and obligations of the GPD, which could be permissible for the effects of Article 6.1.f) GDPR, provided that specific guarantees are applied, specifically, in relation to the duty of information and the principle of minimisation. The responsibilities of the intervening subjects should be clarified in order to determine who is responsible for treatment, as well as the justification of the use of mechanisms based on artificial intelligence.

It resolves to admonish the Quermany School because, on the one hand, it disseminated the identity and complete number of DNI members on a selection commission, which violated the principle of minimisation, and on the other, since the publication of this information was made on a public-road notice board, so that anyone outside the educational community could access it, thus contravening the principle of confidentiality.

The principle of the presumption of innocence should apply when it has not been established that unauthorised workers have accessed the letter presented by the complaining entity.

The claimant focuses his claim on the cancellation of personal data relating to events that occurred while he was a minor and states that each time the police stop this data appears. The DGP has asserted that the data of the claimant was canceled when the person reached the age of majority. The response of the DGP is declared extemporaneous, where it is reported that the cancellation of the data requested by the complainant has been effective, and the claimant's right to the claimant has been disallowed from the substance.

The complaint is shelved because of the documentation provided by the SLT Department it is noted that it was the same person who, in the framework of a public health sanction procedure, communicated and authorised the data on the 'professional' mobile phone where he received electronic notification of the motion for a resolution of that procedure.

Resolution is issued. The principle of confidentiality is imposed. The Municipal Institute of Parks and Gardens sends an email attaching a high-rise appeal in dispute of a legal basis for the call for a selective process to all workers' representatives. It is sent to justify stopping the procedure, in compliance with the obligation of motivation and transparency. However, compliance with this obligation does not justify the transfer of the resource or the personal data included in it (DNI and the complainant's home).

RA is dictated in a case in which the complainant requested a merit assessment review (previously occupied workplaces). The City Council rectified the failure of the applicant's score, taking into account the merits of the two previous jobs. This varied the score order of the candidates, which is why those who were affected by the alteration of the score were notified. This notification to this applicant is in accordance with the law since these candidates were directly interested and affected. In addition, they had the right of access to the file of the selective process, which is why, regardless of whether the city council had notified this resolution or not, they were able to access the information.