Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The complainant, in his capacity as a student of the UAB, received an informative email from the International Day of the Workers' Women. By not wanting to receive any more emails of this type, he responded to the university's email, so his message was received by third parties outside his sender. This is attributable to their actions, and not to a human error or computer error by the reported entity that has led to a violation of the data protection rules, which is why the complaint is filed.

It is dismissed because it is considered that, although the right of access application was treated as a request of the LTC, the entity ended up giving it an answer that would have been the same in case the application had been processed as a right of access under Article 15 of the GPD. Therefore, the request for the right of access, in which the applicant made a specific claim, also received a specific response informing him that the right of access could not be made effective because of the lack of information.

The animal organization has the right to access the agreement that, if applicable, may have been established for the celebration of the event in which one of the participating equidae died; information on the veterinarians involved; the result of the research actions that have been carried out; and whether disciplinary proceedings have been instituted in respect of legal persons or, anonymously, in respect of natural persons. With regard to all the requested public information that does not contain personal data, there would be no inconvenience in delivering it.

The regulations for the protection of personal data do not prevent the union section from accessing the requested information consisting of the list of the productivity pay of municipal workers for the year 2021, specifying the amount received by each worker. . Access to the list of total days of absence or days off work attributed to workers who are entitled to the productivity supplement could be facilitated by another list after anonymization. Access to the list of excluded staff must be denied because they have been sanctioned by the city council through disciplinary proceedings.

The claimant has the right to access the report produced by the Treatment Board in which it was proposed to deny the degree progression of the internal claimant here, which was provided in an extemporaneous manner.

The City Council is admonished as being responsible for an infringement by violation of the principle of confidentiality, for having sent an uncopyed mail to workers in the local police force, identifying them with first and last name and e-mail address, revealing those who had not yet made the training session of prevention for the covid-19, and who as a result were listed on a "morious" people's stock exchange.

It is appropriate to admonise the Maresme County Council since, since the management of the CCM, an email was sent to all workers, attaching three completion notifications to work relationship with data from third parties. All workers, upon receiving the mail, were able to access the notification and know the contents of these documents.

File resolution is dictated. There is a neighborhood conflict between two colindant properties which results in an administrative procedure with cross-instances. The two sides repeat the documentation presented by the other side. In this context, the city council facilitates the writing of inheritance facilitated by the here denouncing, the other party on the basis of Articles 4 and 53 LPAC, as a legitimate interested party with the right of access to the documentation of the file.

The right of access to emails containing personal data of the claimant or his representative (son) is estimated, because the request contained in the submitted request would be considered to fit within the framework of an art right request. The claimant was entitled to receive a response from the person responsible for the treatment from the prism of the data protection regulations. All of this, without prejudice to the fact that, in advance, the entity may require the interested party to specify the data or treatment activities to which it refers, or that the final answer may be indicated that it does not have the information requested or that it covers some of the limits of Article 23 of the RGPD.