Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The start agreement was charged with the Department of Agriculture (now, Department of Climate Action, Food and Rural Agenda) Two violations: a) The violation of the principle of legality for having accessed the Personal Personal

Publication on the bulletin board of the Electronic Office of an City Council of an administrative act with the name and surname of two people who, together with other neighbors, presented an instance to the City Council.

Although the data communication of the students made by the institute may be based on one of the legal bases that legitimize the treatment, the other principles provided by the GDPR, such as the principle of minimization, must be respected.

Although the communication of student data carried out by the institute may be based on one of the legal bases that legitimize the treatment, it is necessary to respect the other principles provided for by the RGPD, such as the principle of minimization. In application of the minimization principle, student data can only be communicated to the research group if the data is necessary to achieve the intended research purpose.

Although the data communication of the students made by the institute may be based on one of the legal bases that legitimize the treatment, the other principles provided by the GDPR, such as the principle of minimization, must be respected.

The whistleblower complained that the public company fired her while in trial, due to a photograph that would have been made while she was drinking during the labor break. Previous information is archived because it could not be credited that the reported company has performed any processing of the image of the complainant. There is also no evidence to indicate that the company had any interest in obtaining the photograph of the person complaining for use for the purposes described by the person complaining, that is, to motivate the termination of the working relationship.

The entity sent an email without using the hidden copy option, which led to all recipients accessing the email address of the others and knowing that their children had quoted statuses for a PCR test.

An inspector-in-chief of a local policeman sent an e-mail to different people, all of whom were employees of the same city hall, in which he stated that he had filed a complaint for harassment by working, identifying the supposedly bullying person. The complaint is archived in that it is a privately sent mail, not in the exercise of the public functions entrusted, and that the information it contains is the conviction of the mailer and can be framed within the scope of personal opinion, so the City Council is not responsible for it.

Sorry, the report is archived. The complainant complained that he had not been given the information provided for in the art.14 of the GPD when his data was collected in two documents from 1992 and 1996, a time when the law regulating data protection (LORTA) did not provide for the reporting obligation. Furthermore, in the event that the GPD had been in force, the reported facts would not have constituted a violation either, since they are data that the entity would exercise its powers in the field of the municipal sponsorship (Royal Decree 1690/1986, of 11 July), and would therefore be a waiver of the fulfilment of the duty to inform (Art.14.5.c GDPR).

The applicant has the right to access and obtain a copy of the completed disciplinary and confidential information files in which he has the status of complainant, including the identification of the person or persons complaining and witnesses and the information about his person in the files, unless, as a result of the exercise of the right of opposition or the result of the hearing procedure, the circumstances alleged by these persons are justified in preserving their confidentiality. The applicant also has the right to access the merely identifying data (name and surname and position) of public employees who, in the exercise of their functions, have processed the requested files. In the event that the information requested contains information from third parties other than the complainant or declarants that is not relevant from the point of view of their right of defense, this information must be deleted or provided anonymously.