Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

It is stated that the duty of information has been infringed to concede an incorrect information regarding the identity of the responsible for the treatment of the object data of collection and proposes that the collection and treatment of these data has been made without the previous approval of the preceptive general disposal of creation of the file. Applied articles: 44.3.a, in relation in the article 20 of the LOPD, and 44.2.c) in relation in the article 5 of the LOPD.

The exercise of the rights of access and of cancellation is analyzed. Regarding the law of access, the person concerned exercises it in some little concrete terms, which can mean a certain complexity in the answer, and it is considered that the Town Council has attended to the law in a suitable way. Regarding the exercise of the law of cancellation, the identificatives data of the requests cannot be canceled as long as fulfillment is not given to the purpose (to attend to the law), without harm that the Town Council has to reply suitably to the person concerned. The exercise is also analyzed by the systems of videovigilància, as well as the duties to the responsible upward of cancellation of treated images.

The diffusion is analyzed of determinate information on the part of a union, in particular, about the opening of a disciplinary report, about the nomination of a police inspector and about the realization of some listenings for a worker of the Town Council. Different requests of access to data of the workers on the part of the union are also analyzed, in particular, the access to information about formation and economic helps, about the identity of a civil servant who issues a report, about the Documents TC1 and TC2, and about the staff of staff, with detailed indication of the contributions to the Social Security for each worker.

The claim of cancellation is loved for not having given answer in the specified period to the effect. As for the background, the engraving of the voice to the session of the negotiating Board in order to write up the corresponding minutes is a treatment subjected to the LOPD, with independence of itself this datum is or not incorporated into a file. It is considered adjusted to law to preserve the engraving until it is written up and the minutes are approved. Applied articles: Art. 2.1, 16 LOPD, 31.2 and 32.2 RLOPD, 15.2.b Law 26/2010

The claim of cancellation is loved for not having given answer in the specified period to the effect. As for the background, the engraving of the voice to the session of the negotiating Board in order to write up the corresponding minutes is a treatment subjected to the LOPD, with independence of itself this datum is or not incorporated into a file. It is considered adjusted to law to preserve the engraving until it is written up and the minutes are approved. Applied articles: Art. 2.1, 16 LOPD, 31.2 and 32.2 RLOPD, 15.2.b Law 26/2010

The claim of cancellation is loved for not having given answer in the specified period to the effect. As for the background, the engraving of the voice to the session of the negotiating Board in order to write up the corresponding minutes is a treatment subjected to the LOPD, with independence of itself this datum is or not incorporated into a file. It is considered adjusted to law to preserve the engraving until it is written up and the minutes are approved. Applied articles: Art. 2.1, 16 LOPD, 31.2 and 32.2 RLOPD, 15.2.b Law 26/2010

The claim of cancellation is loved for not having given answer in the specified period to the effect. As for the background, the engraving of the voice to the session of the negotiating Board in order to write up the corresponding minutes is a treatment subjected to the LOPD, with independence of itself this datum is or not incorporated into a file. It is considered adjusted to law to preserve the engraving until it is written up and the minutes are approved. Applied articles: Art. 2.1, 16 LOPD, 31.2 and 32.2 RLOPD, 15.2.b Law 26/2010

The claim of cancellation is loved for not having given answer in the specified period to the effect. As for the background, the engraving of the voice to the session of the negotiating Board in order to write up the corresponding minutes is a treatment subjected to the LOPD, with independence of itself this datum is or not incorporated into a file. It is considered adjusted to law to preserve the engraving until it is written up and the minutes are approved. Applied articles: Art. 2.1, 16 LOPD, 31.2 and 32.2 RLOPD, 15.2.b Law 26/2010

The claim of cancellation is loved for not having given answer in the specified period to the effect. As for the background, the engraving of the voice to the session of the negotiating Board in order to write up the corresponding minutes is a treatment subjected to the LOPD, with independence of itself this datum is or not incorporated into a file. It is considered adjusted to law to preserve the engraving until it is written up and the minutes are approved. Applied articles: Art. 2.1, 16 LOPD, 31.2 and 32.2 RLOPD, 15.2.b Law 26/2010

The claim of cancellation is loved for not having given answer in the specified period to the effect. As for the background, the engraving of the voice to the session of the negotiating Board in order to write up the corresponding minutes is a treatment subjected to the LOPD, with independence of itself this datum is or not incorporated into a file. It is considered adjusted to law to preserve the engraving until it is written up and the minutes are approved. Applied articles: Art. 2.1, 16 LOPD, 31.2 and 32.2 RLOPD, 15.2.b Law 26/2010