Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The City Council is admonished to violate the principle of legality, since it is accredited that it published the results of the applicants, -identified with name and surnames-, who had not passed the psychotechnical tests and the exercises carried out within the framework of a selective process of internal promotion.

The reported entity sent the unpaid invoices by the leaseholder of a property owned by the complainant, to the complainant since this was the owner of the contracted policy for the supply of water and, therefore, the one obliged to pay the invoices. In this case, regardless of what the parties stipulated in the rental contract, the person who owned the property was obliged to pay before AGISSA. In this regard, it is worth saying that, later, the complainant changed the ownership of the policy in favor of a third person who leased his property and, when he left the property, he asked for the billing to be returned to his name. In this second case, the complainant also asked AGISSA to know the outstanding debt of the tenant since the transfer of rights and obligations of the aforementioned policy could only be carried out if the complainant assumed the amounts not satisfied. Likewise, he also alleged that he needed to know the outstanding amounts in order to be able to claim them judicially to the leased person of his property, to breach the clauses of the rental contract. In accordance with the above, the Authority considered that the sending of said information was protected by Article 6.1 f) RGPD since it was carried out to satisfy the legitimate interests of the complainant. Specifically, to satisfy the legitimate interest of the complainant to obtain the necessary evidence, to claim to the tenant of the property the amounts that he did not satisfy.

The person making the complaint complained of improper access to his or her medical records. It is resolved to archive the proceedings to the extent that within the framework of the prior information it has not been verified that any act that could constitute an infringement has occurred, while it has been sufficiently justified that the controversial access was carried out within the framework of the tasks assigned to the professional who carried it out.

El responsable del tratamiento tendría que revisar el AIPD efectuada para garantizar que esta recoge tanto la información prevista en el artículo 10 de la Instrucción 1/2009, de 10 de febrero, sobre el tratamiento de datos de carácter personal mediante cámaras con fines de videovigilancia, así como el resto de requisitos establecidos por el artículo 35.7 del RGPD. La consulta previa a esta Autoridad únicamente es preceptiva cuando la AIPD muestre que el tratamiento comporta un alto riesgo si el responsable del tratamiento no toma medidas para mitigarlo.

It resolves to warn the City Council of Cardedeu since it has not carried out the necessary data protection impact assessment, in relation to the processing of personal data that it carries out within the framework of the provision of the door-to-door waste collection service. Likewise, the City Council is also admonished for not having accredited compliance with its duty of information, prior to the moment in which the users of this service provide their personal data, to obtain the elements of containment.

In relation to the data published by the representative of a political party in a plenary session of the city council, it is archived because it has not been proven that the published data was provided by the City Council. Furthermore, the data published is incorrect, which is indicative of the fact that the person who provided it was not linked to the City Council. In relation to the leak of personal data through a WhatsApp group, this fact is also archived since the fact that the photographs of the squares (with shifts and schedules) have been exchanged in a WhatsApp group is not an indication sufficient to allow a violation of the principle of confidentiality to be attributed because it is not proven that the people in the group are members of the local police of the City Council.

The right of access presented by the claimant in which he requested to access his images captured by the video surveillance cameras is estimated, to the extent that it has been verified that the City Council did not give a response to the requester. The interested party has the right to receive a response from the data controller to their request for the right of access, without prejudice to the fact that the entity is only obliged to give access to the information of the points provided for in the different sections of article 15 of the RGPD.

The complainant inmate in a penitentiary complains that the center does not provide him with the document "Summary of the inmate". The claim is estimated, given that the Department of Justice, Rights and Memory did not respond in time to the claimant's request. No pronouncement is made on the merits, since the Department of Justice has estimated the request for access.

The claim is estimated, given that the General Directorate of the Police of the Department of the Interior did not respond in time to the request of the person making the claim, without it being necessary to make a statement on the merits, given that the DGP has estimated the deletion request.