Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

Given the regulations applicable in the case before us, and from the point of view of data protection regulations, access by the councilor to the file on participatory budgets would be justified, including the original proposals with identification of the people who made them.

The claimant does not intend to access information about his personal data (and/or those of his younger son by representation), but data about a third person. This particular information is not part of the right of regulated access to the rules on the protection of personal data, although it can be requested under the right of access to public information.

In accordance with the legislation applicable at the time of issuing this opinion, Article 22 of the LOPD would constitute the legitimate basis for the processing of data consisting of the communication of information to the judicial police necessary for a specific investigation, including the communication of specially protected data. As for the data of the padron (sliding wheels and cohabiting wheels) of the residents of a building, it can be considered appropriate for the purposes of the treatment and not excessive. However, the request for information from municipal databases, without the specification of the information necessary for the purposes of the judicial inquiry carried out, may prove disproportionate. In this case, the city council is recommended to request the judicial police a specific statement justifying the requested information. The same conclusion would be reached by application of LO 7/2021, applicable from 16 June 2021 onwards.

In view of the data protection regulations, and in view of the circumstances, it would be proportionate to grant the councilor access to the administrative file relating to the application for aid for school supplies in the year 2020 provided that the information is anonymised or pseudonymized in such a way that the person applying for the aid or the members of the family unit cannot be identified.

The communication on the part of the local board|piece of advice of particulars of the beneficiary persons of social services of the respective towns, in the town councils of the region, can have sufficient juridical basis in accordance with the article|item 6.1.e) and 6.4 of the RGPD, without the consent of the affected ones, without harm of the necessary application of the principles of limitation of the purpose and of minimization being necessary.

They consider themselves justified and therefore in agreement with the regulations of data protection and health worker|toilet, the eventual accesses to the clinical history carried out for no welfare staff in order to process the consultation|consulting|surgery brought up by the accusing person through the portal "My Health".

In the context of an earlier claim for protection of rights (PT 20-2021), the Authority was informed that by judgment of 30/10/2020 the parental authority was granted exclusively to the father of the child. In that rights-care procedure, the representative of the claimant was required several times to confirm or deny whether the parental authority of the child of his representative had been attributed exclusively to the father of the minor.
The representative of the claimant was required to report whether his client was exercising parental responsibility and, in that case, to prove this. In the same request, he was warned of the consequences of not accrediting the mother with the exercise of parental responsibility.
The claimant has not provided the information that distorts the information, nor has it confirmed that the mother has the legal representation of the minor, being a necessary requirement to exercise the rights relating to data protection of children under the age of fourteen.

Accesses by various professionals to clinical history, without any attendant reason to justify them.

The claim is rejected, since the ICS has proved to have given to the complaining person a copy of its|his|her|their clinical history (HC), together with the fact that the complaint of the complaining person referred to the omission of documents that are not part of a HC, as the messages of eConsultes, or police reports are. Without harm of the fact that the claimant could|might access this documentation if he|she|it requested it expressly.