Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The data protection regulations do not prevent the complainant from communicating the information he requests, regarding access to his clinical history, including the identity of the professionals, rank and professional category, who have accessed it.

Given that at the time of the application for access the selection body has not assessed the merits claimed by the participants in the selection process, access to the documentation accrediting these merits (or to the spreadsheet in which they are related) would not be justified, without prejudice to the fact that, once their assessment has been carried out, access can be recognised with regard to, if applicable, those participants who have finally been selected or who have obtained a better position in the job exchange with respect to the claimant.

The right to data protection would not prevent the claimant from accessing the requested public information that only contains aggregated data. Likewise, in view of the concurrent circumstances in the specific case, it would be justified to release pseudonymized information on the distribution of cases among the lawyers assigned to the TOAD, with an indication of the associated incidences, as well as on the invoices presented by these lawyers, for the period between 2018 and 2022. However, the information on the persons assisted by the TOAD lawyers that may be included would have to be omitted, in any case.

Data protection regulations do not prevent the claimant from having access to information concerning public employees who had intervened in the various previous research actions and disciplinary proceedings processed between 2020 and 2022, both of which have been resolved and who have not participated in the irregular conduct, unless there are exceptional circumstances. However, in accordance with the fundamentals that have been laid down, access to the files can be facilitated through the anonymisation mechanism or, where this measure is not effective, through a summary of the files, so that in no case are the natural persons concerned (people investigated and, if applicable, complainants or witnesses) identifiable.

Data protection regulations would not allow the trade union delegate to access a copy of the payrolls of the work staff affected by the application for access. However, it is possible to communicate the information contained in payrolls in an aggregate way, so as to ensure that they are not identified.

Data protection regulations do not prevent access to purely identifying data from professionals who have drafted the reports, or appear in the documentation requested for the performance of their duties. However, in accordance with the fundamentals that have been laid down, with regard to information relating to categories of data that are especially protected, in particular data relating to the health of residents, access must be provided through an extract or summary of the reports issued by the primary care centre, so that the physical persons concerned are not identifiable.

Prenent en consideració les circumstàncies que concorren en el cas particular, i d’acord amb l’anàlisi que s’ha dut a terme, des del punt de vista de la finalitat general de transparència no estaria justificat l’accés a la informació relativa a l’antiguitat, titulació, formació i nivell de català de les persones ocupants de determinats llocs de treball, més enllà de la informació relativa a la concurrència dels requisits mínims exigits per ocupar els dits llocs de treball, com ara, que la persona ocupant disposa dels coneixements de llengua catalana o la formació mínima exigida per al lloc de treball concret que ocupa, d’acord amb la relació de llocs de treball de la Diputació.

With regard to the request for access to information on the list of workers, from 1 January 2020 until the present, by years, indicating names and surnames, workplace and equipment where the activity is carried out, number of morning and afternoon days held in person and at a distance, and whether or not tickets have been paid in restaurants, it is justified only if this information is provided without identification by workplace and equipment where it performs its activity and replacing the name and surnames of workers with a code that does not allow them to be identified.

Data protection regulations do not prevent access to the requested information consisting of the name and surnames of the person who met the head of the Area of Territory of the City Council in the context of a dossier protecting urban planning law, provided that this person has participated as a collegiate technician in the aforementioned dossier. Outside this assumption, access to the requested information should be denied.

With regard to the list of people who have received productivity supplements in the last four years, as well as their amount, criteria and calculation requested, data protection regulations do not prevent access to this information from all employees of the County Council. As regards the list of people who have received the bonuses and/or other salary supplements in the last four years, access is only justified with regard to the workforce who hold high positions, management positions, trust, free appointment, special responsibility, or who involve high levels of pay. However, as far as the rest of the workforce is concerned, access is only justified if this information is provided without identifying by categories and replacing the name and surnames of working people with a code that does not allow them to be identified. With regard to information on the training of workers in the last four years, the personal data protection regulation does not prevent access. We must remember that the person representing the workers is subject to the duty of professional secrecy and secrecy.