ICO - IC-45844-V2X8
| ICO - IC-45844-V2X8 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | ICO (UK) |
| Jurisdiction: | United Kingdom |
| Relevant Law: | Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 6(1)(a) GDPR Article 6(1)(f) GDPR 40(2) of the FOIA 40(3A)(3B) of the FOIA |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Upheld |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 28.08.2020 |
| Published: | 28.08.2020 |
| Fine: | None |
| Parties: | NHS West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group |
| National Case Number/Name: | IC-45844-V2X8 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2020/2618241/ic-45844-v2x8.pdf |
| Appeal: | n/a |
| Original Language(s): | English |
| Original Source: | Information Commissionner Office (in EN) |
| Initial Contributor: | Mariam Tabatadze |
the Commissioner has determined that there is sufficient legitimate interest to outweigh the data subjects’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
English Summary
Facts
he complainant has requested information to NHS West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) relating to the responsibilities of the role (the role) of the officers commissioning of continuing health care for patients with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) and the standard contract used when commissioning the care. The complainant also made a request for information relating the qualifications that are required for the respective role.
The CCG has withheld the job description under section 40 on the basis that it is the personal data of the post holder. There were several correspondence exchanges between two parties, in which the CCG did provide some details of responsibilities that someone working at the relevant level would have and provided details of the qualifications and number of years’ experience which the actual post holder had.
Dispute
The Commissioner had to decide if the CCG is entitled to withhold the job description under section 40 and whether it has complied with its obligations under section 1 to provide the complainant with all the information described by his request of 11 September 2019 as the ‘standard contract’. The commissioner has determined whether the requested information constitutes personal data, and if it is, is must establish whether disclosure of that data would breach any of the DP principles.
Holding
The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG is not entitled to withhold the job description under section 40. After having established that the requested information is personal data (as there is only one person holding that post and the name of the individual is known) the Commissioner determines if the disclosure of the data would contravene the DP principles.
As always, it considers the following three-part test (article 6 GDPR) - i) Legitimate interest ii) Necessity and iii) Balancing test. It establishes that there is a legitimate interest in the public understanding the role the CCG plays in providing services to vulnerable members of our society and examining its performance. As for necessity test, the Commissioner considers that there is a greater need to understand who is responsible for the individual elements of the process through which the care was organized and delivered. The provision of the job description would certainly assist the complainant in forming a view on where responsibilities lay and how best to address any issues he had with those services. The Commissioner rules out that the disclosure of the information was necessary for the complainant to pursue his legitimate interests. Does the legitimate interests of the complainant and the public overrides the data subjects’s interests and fundamental rights and freedoms? what is the impact of the disclosure? After the careful considerations of all possible impacts of the disclosure, the Commissioner noted that the impact would be very limited as the job description relates to the individual’s professional life and the disclosure is therefore less intrusive than it would be if the requested information related to their personal life. There would be very limited interference with their interests or fundamental rights and freedoms. 78. Based on the above, the Commissioner has determined that there is sufficient legitimate interest to outweigh the data subjects’ fundamental rights and freedoms. The Commissioner therefore considers there is an Article 6 basis for processing and so the disclosure of the information would be lawful.
In relation to fairness, the Commissioner considered that if the disclosure passes the legitimate interest test for lawful processing, it is highly likely that disclosure will be fair for the same reasons.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the English original. Please refer to the English original for more details.
