Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

Any communication of particulars on the part of the Consortium, as responsible and assignor, in the town councils that request it, has to undergo the foreseen general regime in the articles 11 and 21 of the LOPD. Thus, the participation and shared responsibility of the town councils in relation to the contribution of the service to persons domiciled in the town, in particular, with the cofinancing or contribution of resources, for application of Law 12/2007, it can legitimate the communication, not already of anonymized information or dissociated, but of the concrete particulars that are determined in the consultation: name, surnames and loaned service. 

When, for the suitable contribution of the ordered services to this police body the engraving of the calls that are made there is necessary, it is necessary to inform previously the affected persons, unless one of the foreseen exceptions contributes to the article 24.1 of the LOPD, this is, that it is a matter of a call within the framework of the functions that the local police have attributed on the subject of public safety or for the persecution of crimes.

The noncompliance of the requirements for the Authority so that determinate documentation or information is brought, it is constitutive of a severe offense, also when fulfillment is given to the requirements during the procedure for the sanctionative procedure initiated by this offense. Applied articles: 16.3 Law 5/2002, 5, 44.3.i) and 46.3 LOPD

The treatment of the particulars for purposes different to those that motivated its|his|her|their collection constitutes a severe offense. The instructor of a disciplinary procedure is not empowered to access data of health collected by the same entity with welfare purposes, unless the affected one him consenteixi expressly. Applied articles|items: And), 4, 7, 44.3 d) LOPD and 11.5 of the Law 21/2000

La starting of a project that foresees the use of defibrillators in public spaces allows the collection of personal information that can be associated with the given person and, therefore, manage to identify it without requiring disproportionate efforts. The cession of the data of health recorded in the devices in the health centre so that they incorporate into the clinical history of the patient is considered legitimate in this case (article 11.2.f) of laLOPD). The installation of a camera in the booths in which the defibrillators will be placed will have to fulfill the forecasts of the Instruction 1/2009 in order to be able to consider its treatment legitimate.

L’Administració responsible for the file has the duty of controlling that the treatment of the personal information that is carried out through the SINK is respectful with the whole of the foreseen principles and guarantees in the regulations of data protection, as the case of the realization d’auditories can be. The not needed of consent for l’exercici of the functions that the General Intervention has attributed to access to determinate data related with l’exercici of its functions, it does not have to lead to excluding this organ of the possible auditings or other means of control from the good functioning of the system that he can establish l’Administració, consideration that can be extensible also in other areas d’actuació of the same Administration. The need or not of having the consent of the headlines of the particulars on the part of the users of the SINK it is irrelevant to the effects of determining the convenience d’excloure determinate users of the SINK of foreseen l’auditoria.

Taking into account the Law 11/2007 (articles 6.2.b) and 9), that he remits to the regime of communication of the LOPD (art.11), and to lack of rule with legal rank that fits out the communication of particulars of the files of l’Ajuntament related to the management of l’IAE in l’Administració that formulates the consultation, the cession requires the consent from the titular physical persons of the data. This consent is, also, necessary for application of what orders the tributary regulations (article 95.1.k) of the Law 58/2003, of 17 December, general tributary). It is necessary to discard the possibility of an order of the treatment being able to be established -l’Administració being the responsible and l’Ajuntament (IMI) l’encarregat of the treatment-, since this does not treat the information “per compte” of consulting l’Administració, but that it is the responsible for the concrete information that it is necessary to deal in the object system of consultation.

When they attract themselves and s’enregistren images with until of videovigilància, these only s’han of preserving fulfillment to the purpose pursued with its collection for the period of time that it is strictly necessary to face. With general character, it is recommended not to exceed the maximum deadline d’un the treated images month to cancel, and remembers that the cancellation will entail the blockade of all the images picked up, except the that s’hagin d’emprar for the purification of possible responsibilities born of its treatment.