Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The right to information can be made effective by layers in accordance with Article 11 LOPDGDD. In a previous sanctioning procedure, the City Council was already sanctioned because the basic information regarding the data not collected directly from the person concerned did not include the categories of data subject to treatment and the sources from which the data originates, extremes that are In compliance with the measures required in that sanctioning procedure, the City Council modified the content of the basic information included in the transit infringement notification model, conforming to art. 11.3 LOPDGDD.

The communication by a hospital - which is part of the public use network - to CatSalut of data from its staff, so that this promoter of the study for the evaluation of the immune status of health personnel in Catalonia against the sars-cov2 virus (VISCAT) - contact these people in order to recruit them to participate in the said study, you do not need of your consent, to the extent that the processing of such data would be covered by the legal basis provided for in Article 6.1.e) of the RGPD

Was denounced that the informative poster of the existence of the camera or cameras|cameramen that he|she|it would have installed, it|he|she did not incorporate the information about the identity of the responsible for the treatment. Of the performances|actions, not even the existence of the cameras has proved that the poster had placed the denounced entity in the object location of complaint|denunciation, or either.

The responsible for the treatment has to make an analysis of risks to determine the appropriate technical and organizational measures to guarantee the security|certainty of the data that he|she|it treats through the business agent of reports.

The claim for formal motives is loved, since the DGP did not give answer in the legally established deadline|installment. It is not necessary to speak about the background|bottom, since, in a way extemporaneous and once presented the claim, the DGP loved the request of access.

The claimant exercised his right of access to the recording of the call he made on CAT112, but this body claimed that he was only making the transfer of recordings at the direct request of the Courts. Instead of transcription he facilitated the transcription of the call, without identifying the person who attended the call.

In the collection of the data it is necessary to facilitate all the foreseen information to the article|item 13 of the RGPD. In fulfillment|compliment of the duties to data protection in the design, the responsible for the treatment has to adopt the technical and organizational measures adapted to apply the principles of data protection in an effective way, among|between which the principle|beginning of confidentiality. In the present case, was not guaranteed that the persons who joined to the group of WhatsApp created by the Town Council, they could not access the number of mobile|motive, photo of profile and user name of the rest of members.

Vulneration of the principle of confidentiality. During the session of a municipal plenary, a councillor of the city council's government team identified a municipal policeman by name and surname. He also commented that he had been on leave and that at that time he was on holiday. The Plenary was recorded and uploaded to the City Hall's YouTube channel. It could also be accessed from the Town Hall website.

The video was accessible without restriction and remained in print from 31/07/2020 (date of publication) until at least 15/03/2021, when the City Council removed the video.

A residents association sent a mail with an attached file to the Town Council. The file contained the particulars of 55 partners|members, in particular, name|noun and surnames, and DNI. Later, in a group of WhatsApp created by an individual a photo of the listing of partners|members turned up published. The Town Council brought a technical report of a computer company which he|she|it concludes did not find any evidence that the information had distributed to itself from the computers of the Town Council. The accusing person did not bring any evidence which it|he|she allowed to deduce from the Town Council being the responsible for the diffusion|broadcast of the document either, beyond the fact that it|he|she sent the controversial document by|out of|for electronic mail in the Town Council. There was not evidence in head|boss of the messages of the groups of WhatsApp brought by the accusing person either.

The Catalan Health Service commissioned an association to conduct a survey in order to assess the degree of satisfaction of users of mental health centers. In the framework of this commission, the CatSalut provided the aforementioned association with data concerning patients from these centres, without having previously formalised the corresponding contract of charge.