AEPD (Spain) - EXP202203617
|AEPD - PS-00188-2022
Article 5(1)(c) GDPR
Article 6 GDPR
Article 13 GDPR
Article 18(1) CE
Article 22 LOPDGDD
Article 89 LOPDGDD
Article 89(3) LOPDGDD
|National Case Number/Name:
|European Case Law Identifier:
|AEPD (in ES)
The Spanish DPA fined a controller €6,000 for using the audio recording option of its surveillance system to hear private conversations of its employee with a customer, which was later used for dismissing the employee.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
A company (the controller) started recording audio with their surveillance system in order to monitor an employee (data subject) after they could see in the images provided by the system that the data subject was allegedly misusing the machinery.
Allegedly, one of the conversations recorded with a customer was considered by the controller as inappropriate, which led to the dismissal of the data subject. The conversation took place outside working hours. The dismissal letter contained a reference to this conversation. The data subject, however, sued the company over the dismissal. The case ended with an agreement between both parties, where the controller accepted the dismissal to be void.
Furthermore, the data subject filed a complaint with the Spanish DPA over unlawful workplace audio surveillance.
According to the controller, the data subject had been informed that a surveillance system for performance monitoring was in place, and that such surveillance system could be recording audio. There were also two banners indicating the existence of such system. Additionally, the data subjects was given a Handbook on Surveillance Systems Usage that made reference to the audio recording functionality.
Holding[edit | edit source]
Within the procedure, the controller tried to allege that there was no proof of the existence of such conversation, and that they could not deliver it since it had been automatically deleted after 30 days, according to their standard procedure. However, the DPA considered its existence proved enough on the grounds that the controller had admitted its existence in the dismissal letter and that the controller had accepted the dismissal to be void.
According to the DPA, the data subject was not given enough information about the processing. The company alleged that such recording was mentioned in the Handbook on Surveillance Systems Usage given to the data subject, but the DPA noted that the Handbook only mentioned the possibility of activating such functionality.
According to Article 22 of the Spanish Data Protection Act (LOPDGDD), data processing by surveillance systems may be carried out with security purposes. Article 89 LOPDGGG develops the right to privacy of workers against surveillance systems and establishes that companies are entitled to use such system for monitoring and control purposes, as per the Spanish Labour law, always within the legal framework and its limits. Paragraph 2 of the same Article prohibits the use of such systems in rest or private places such as changing rooms, canteens, etc. In accordance with these provisions, the controller alleged that, since it had not installed the surveillance system in the places forbidden by Article 89(2) LOPDGDD, the installation should have been deemed valid. However, the DPA considered that the installation and usage of such system was not proportionate. The DPA made reference to Spanish Constitutional Court case law, which indicates that under Spanish Labour law workplace surveillance needs to respect the workers' dignity, and that workers have their own private sphere at the workplace. Therefore, systems that limit the workers' privacy shall be indispensable and strictly necessary for the pursued purpose. Mere utility or convenience cannot amount to strict necessity. The Court also mentioned the chilling effect that recording audio may have on workers. In this sense, the DPA linked the proportionality requisite to the minimisation principle from Article 5(2)(c) GDPR. Also, according to Article 89(3) LOPDGDD, the use of audio recording systems in the workplace shall only be permitted when the risks to the safety of installations, goods and persons are relevant and always respecting the principle of proportionality, the principle of minimum intervention and the foreseen guarantees.
The DPA concluded that the controller was not able to prove why the recording of audio was strictly necessary for the purposes of monitoring their employee. Additionally, even if the DPA did not have the recording itself as evidence, since it had been deleted, the DPA considered its existence was sufficiently proved, as stated above, and that the mere activation of the audio recording implied the collection and processing of the data subject's voice, i.e., their personal data. Therefore, the controller processed such personal data without a legitimate basis, in breach of Article 6 GDPR.
For the violation of Article 6 GDPR, the AEPD fined the controller €6,000. In order to determine the amount of the fine, the DPA took into account the following. As aggravating factors, the DPA considered the intentionality of the infringement, since the installation of the system was intentional; and the degree of responsibility of the controller, since they did not have a procedure in place related to the processing of the voice of its employees. As mitigating factors, the DPA considered the low number of affected data subjects (1); the fact that the controller is a small company (only 1 employee); and the low volume of data processed.
Comment[edit | edit source]
Share your comments here!
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]
The decision below is a machine translation of the Spanish original. Please refer to the Spanish original for more details.
1/23 File No.: EXP202203617 RESOLUTION OF SANCTIONING PROCEDURE Of the procedure instructed by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection and based on to the following BACKGROUND FIRST: A.A.A. (hereinafter, the claimant) on 03/18/2022 filed claim before the Spanish Data Protection Agency. The claim is directed against B.B.B. with NIF ***NIF.1 (hereinafter, the claimed party). The motives on which the claim is based are the following: The claimant states that until ***DATE.1 she was an employee of the company of the claimed party, date on which he was notified of his dismissal disciplinary action based on access to the content of voice recordings from the video surveillance system that your work center has, extreme, the audio recording by said system, of which the party was not informed claimant, understanding that said circumstance is contrary to the regulations of Data Protection. It details that these recordings correspond to a conversation held with a family on 03/02/2022, which took place inside the premises and outside working hours; and another that he had with a client the next day, to whom he commented that one of the machines prevented him from doing the jobs well. According to the complaining party, it is two private conversations that were recorded by the video surveillance system, as revealed by the party claimed in the messages sent by Whatsapp that attached. It adds that the information that was delivered to it on the aforementioned system of video surveillance does not clarify whether or not the voice is recorded. With your claim, provide the following documentation: . WhatsApp conversation in which the claimed party alludes to the conversations mentioned. This is a transcript of this alleged conversation collected on a blank page with nothing to prove its authenticity. . Image of a dismissal letter, dated ***DATE.1, stating handwritten signature of the complaining party on the same date, as proof of its delivery to the interested party. This letter communicates the termination of the employment relationship for disciplinary dismissal, motivated by a "drop in work performance" and "bad use of machinery”, verified through the recordings of 03/02/2022. It does reference, likewise, to the recording of a conversation in which the party complainant "complains to a client about the state of the company's machinery, blaming it for the errors in the orders”. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/23 . "Informative manual on the use of video surveillance systems" provided by the claimed party to the claiming party, regarding the installed video surveillance system in the workplace where the complaining party carried out its activity as employee, in which the handwritten signature of the complaining party is recorded. Part of the information contained in this document is outlined in the Proven Fact Third. SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights (in forward LOPDGDD), said claim was transferred to the claimed party, for to proceed with its analysis and inform this Agency within a month of the actions carried out to adapt to the requirements established in the regulations of Data Protection. The transfer, which was carried out in accordance with the regulations established in Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of the Administrations Public (hereinafter, LPACAP), was collected on 03/30/2022 as stated in the acknowledgment of receipt in the file. On 04/08/2022, this Agency received a written response in which the Respondent party states the following: “. The person responsible for the treatment of the video surveillance system; B.B.B., with NIF… and Contact email… . The cameras installed in the premises of ***ADDRESS.1, have a security camera video surveillance that is activated by stopping movement. This camera points to a particular angle where the cash register is. It also has two photodetectors located inside the premises. One of them above the camera video surveillance with the same viewing angle as the video surveillance camera and the second photodetector points to the rear of the premises. Both photodetectors only activate when the alarm does and take three photos, these three photos They can also be requested by the person in charge of the cameras to the person in charge of treatment of the cameras, through the application. Annex I: Photographs of these devices (camera and photodetectors) are attached together with video surveillance posters, as well as photographs of the mobile screen used to the vision of the images in the mobile application. Photographs of the two posters in the premises that warn of the existence of video surveillance area, these signs are located next to the cameras. in the same It is appreciated expressly and clearly according to the RGPD and LOPDGDD, the necessary information about who is responsible and the processing of your data, what are the rights they can exercise and where to go to do so. In the images of Annex I you can see the posters next to the cameras. There are no monitors where captured images are shown and can be accessible since these are only available in the mobile application provided by the "Securitas Direct" treatment manager, to the mobile application is only authorized your access the person responsible for the images, B.B.B.. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/23 Currently the company does not have workers on its account, therefore, there is no authorized personnel in the establishment, nor are the cameras seen by the clientele, given that they are only accessible by the mobile application that the person in charge of treatment of the camera and the photodetectors puts at the disposal with a user and password. Documents are attached that prove that the worker A.A.A. with NIF ***NIF.2 who terminated his employment contract with the person in charge on ***DATE.1, knew the existence of video surveillance cameras for labor control. On ***DATE.2, the former worker was informed that a system had been installed of video surveillance inside the premises and that this may be used to carry out a Control of work performance of company workers. Said statement is known and signed by it. In addition, you are given for more information a Informative Manual on the use of video surveillance systems, also informed and signed by the former and only worker. The present document has as objective the knowledge of the installation and use of video surveillance systems, derived from the need to carry out a control in the accesses, as well as to the interior, in order to guarantee the security of the goods and people. The use of cameras or video cameras for security purposes implies the capture, recording and storage of images that may contain character data staff. Capture or recording may consist of an imaging system associated or not with voice capture. This is how the staff is made aware through the Information manual on the use of video surveillance systems. Annex II: Information manual on the use of video surveillance systems and clause informative, where the knowledge of these systems by the staff is accredited. . The installation, maintenance and management of video surveillance and cameras have been contracted and performed with the SECURITAS DIRECT Treatment Manager SPAIN SAU… Annex III: copy of the contract signed with the security company and technical report of the video surveillance system. . The video surveillance system records the images and keeps them for the period of three days. . Report on whether the video surveillance system installed in the establishment has sound capture, as well as image. The video surveillance system does have sound capture, in addition to capturing of image. According to the Workers' Statute, the employer can establish the surveillance and control measures that it deems most appropriate to verify the fulfillment by the worker of his labor obligations and duties. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/23 The video surveillance system takes into account the requirements of the LOPDGDD and the GDPR; Principle of proportionality and the regulations on personal privacy. Coinciding in their assessments of the business need to act in accordance with the minimum intervention criteria, its maximum expression being the judgment of proportionality, adequacy and balance. The company established the measures it considered most appropriate for surveillance and control to verify compliance by the worker with his obligations and job duties. Therefore, the same, taking as evidence the video surveillance cameras of the and based on their right to take appropriate measures to control labor; On date ***DATE.1 communicates the termination of the employment relationship with A.A.A., through disciplinary dismissal given the reasons founded on a drop in work performance where it is suspected and accredited through security cameras video surveillance that the worker left tasks or orders unfulfilled. In addition, it is demonstrated through the capture of the image a misuse of the machinery, causing loss of material and time to the company. As a result of poor work performance and in protection of business assets it is decided to carry out a more exhaustive monitoring of the worker. In the following days and given the previous suspicions, the audio is activated of the camera, in which it is observed that the former worker misuses the machinery... In the following days another fact is observed, the worker complains to the clientele on the machinery of the company, blaming the errors on it and causing discredit and possible economic losses to the company. According to the events that occurred and the well-founded suspicions, the resource used as a measure of control within the framework of the right to privacy staff that would be limited to: a) The suitability of the recording for the purpose intended by the company - verify if the worker actually committed the suspected irregularities and if so take appropriate disciplinary action. b) The need for the measure -since the recording would serve as proof of such irregularities. c) The proportionality of the control - temporarily, while demonstrating the facts. In short, this control function would be within the established legal limits. in the art. 89.3 LOPDGDD, since it arises from a situation of suspicion well-founded, that the means used is presented as the only viable one to carry out the investigation necessary to guarantee a reliable result”. Ends the claimed part citing article 89.3 of the LOPDGDD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/23 Provide a copy of a document delivered to the claimant on ***DATE.2 (it has his handwritten signature and the indicated date, also handwritten), with the label "Inform workers about the installation of cameras (Labor Control)". Part of the information contained in this document is outlined in the Proven Fact Third. THIRD: On April 13, 2022, in accordance with article 65 of the LOPDGDD, the claim presented by the claimant party was admitted for processing. FOURTH: On May 9, 2022, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection agreed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the claimed party, pursuant to the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of the LPACAP, for the alleged infringement of article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Regulation of Data Protection, hereinafter GDPR), typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned Regulation; and classified as very serious for prescription purposes in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD. In the opening agreement it was determined that the sanction that could correspond, attention to the existing evidence at the time of opening and without prejudice to the that results from the instruction, would amount to a total of 6,000 euros. Likewise, it was warned that the imputed infractions, if confirmed, may entail the imposition of measures, according to the aforementioned article 58.2 d) of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned start-up agreement in accordance with the rules established in the LPACAP, the claimed party presented a pleading in which it requests the procedure file based on the following considerations: 1. In response to what was stated by the complaining party regarding the ignorance of the recording system, points out that in the conciliation document signed by the admits the conversations held with the client and the knowledge about the installation of the video and voice system. In this regard, it clarifies that, in accordance with article 89 of the LOPDGDD, in no case the audio and image recording was made in places intended for rest or in places where private conversations would take place that could violate the worker's right to privacy. 2. Understand that speaking ill of the company with a client can have consequences negative, with economic repercussions and prestige in the company. Therefore, in his opinion, two legally protected principles come into conflict: the right of the worker protected by article 18.1 CE and the duties of good faith and loyalty between the employer and the staff. Labor legislation protects that the worker expose your complaints within the company, but another matter is to confuse the freedom of opinion of the worker with the right to insult or use expressions vexatious, insulting and undermining the image of the company. These conversations are recognized in the conciliation document signed by the employee. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/23 3. Nor was it necessary for complaints to be made directly to customers, that harms the organization, influencing its success. In this sense, the defendant considers that the power of direction of the entrepreneur is essential for the smooth running of the organization, and attributes the possibility of adopting surveillance and control measures such as recording, This being proportional to the purpose and adjusted to the provisions of article 20.3 of the Workers' Statute and article 89.3 of the LOPDGDD, which admits the recording as an appropriate and proportionate measure in justified cases. Regarding the tests, the following stands out: . Voice recordings cannot be provided because they have been deleted after 30 days, under applicable law. The defendant considers that this is essential in terms of this proceedings. . In contrast to what was expressed by the AEPD in the opening agreement, in relation to the "Informative manual on the use of video surveillance systems", which the authority of control does not consider conclusive in terms of information on voice pickup, should take into account what was expressed by the complaining party in the act of conciliation admitting that he was aware of the use of cameras with voice recording. 4. The question raised in this file has to do with the use of the recordings obtained by the video surveillance cameras of a company for the adoption of disciplinary dismissals, having informed the workers about the facility and its control purpose. You understand that said recording does not constitute a violation of data protection, since the worker knew the facility of the chamber, was in a conspicuous place, such circumstances being known by the hardworking, who knew the use that was going to be given to her. The Judgment of the TC under number 39/2016, resolves a case in which a worker had been disciplinary dismissed. In this case they have not been used. cameras or video, since the claimed party has recognized the inappropriateness of dismissal. It goes on to add that in the aforementioned Judgment “the worker who had presented the demand for dismissal, seeking its annulment for violating the honor, privacy and dignity or, secondarily, its unfairness, the dismissal was declared appropriate, and in supplication it was confirmed considering that the installation of the cameras covered the trial of proportionality to justify its legality and not violation of fundamental rights. In amparo, the TC denies the amparo taking into account that the camera was located in the place where the labor provision was developed, focusing directly on the box, considering that it has been adequately weighted that the installation and employment of means of capturing and recording images by the company have respected the right to personal privacy since the installation was a justified measure. What is decisive is therefore compliance by the employer with the legal provisions in data protection and worker information that justifies the use of the C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 7/23 recordings to prove the origin of the dismissal. It is therefore essential the duty of information that in this case is recognized. The requested party provides the following documentation: . It provides a document that the claimed party calls the “Conciliation Document”, although it is not the conciliation act. Actually, it is a document prepared by the claimant, in which there is a stamp of the General Directorate of Employment and Training of the Principality of Asturias and a handwritten indication with the text “Presented in the conciliation act. ***DATE.3…” and two signatures that are not identify. In this document, regarding the reasons for the dismissal, the claimant states: “The referenced voice recordings coming from a security camera security installed inside the company, are proof of my despair at not being able to do my job well because of the lack of training in this regard”. “That same camera records the conversation with a client who told me that I was much more competent than the other girl… and I commented to her… that she couldn't perform some works correctly because of one of the company machines.” In said document, the claimant requests compensation "for violation of fundamental rights for making audio recordings from cameras installed in the workplace. . Decree of the Labor Court ***JUZGADO.1, dated 06/01/2021, in which the approves the conciliation reached between the parties. This Decree indicates that the claimant filed a dismissal claim against the claimed party on the date ***DATE.4, and that the claimed party acknowledges the unfairness of the dismissal. SIXTH: On 06/27/2022, a resolution proposal was formulated in the sense Next: 1. That the claimed party be penalized for a violation of Article 6 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, and classified as very serious for the purposes of prescription in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD, with a fine of 6,000 euros (six a thousand euros). 2. That the claimed party be imposed, within the term to be determined, the adoption of the necessary measures to adapt their actions to the regulations for the protection of personal data, with the scope expressed in the Fundamentals of Law of the resolution proposal. SEVENTH: On 08/08/2022, a written statement of allegations to the proposal of resolution prepared by the claimed party, in which, basically, it reproduces the arguments set forth in their allegations at the opening of the proceeding, some of literally, to request the file of the procedure again. Besides what expressed in his allegations at the opening of the proceeding, the defendant makes the following considerations: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 8/23 . None of the data that is said to be captured by the audio has been used, beyond from a conversation with a client, which was learned through other means. . The reference to the conversation is only credited by a whatsapp. However, bliss conversation could not be heard by anyone, so it does not exist to the effects of the procedure. The conversation was obtained by the interlocutor (the client), who was the one who communicated its content. The fact that the conversation appears in the dismissal letter does not presuppose that it was known by an audio recording and since this recording does not exist, you cannot continue maintaining that it was captured by the cameras. Nor has the complaining party heard or seen the recording because it does not exist. . The procedure does not prove that there was an audio recording containing personal information. . The dismissal was unfair and it is not true that it was caused by the content of the voice recordings from the video surveillance system, it was only one of the essential aspects contained in the dismissal letter. . “…audio basically refers to the sound emitted by the machine to accredit the bad manipulation of the same, which will be accredited at the time by means of the timely expert evidence. . The instructor follows the dictation of the complaint, despite the fact that the complaining party knew the recording system. . The AEPD is intervening in a labor conflict without any justification and without Clarify which protected data has been violated. . Had the recording existed, its purpose would have been to obtain the sound of the machines due to their mishandling. . No audio has been used for the adoption of a disciplinary dismissal. Of the actions carried out in this procedure and of the documentation in the file, the following have been accredited: PROVEN FACTS 1. The claimed party is responsible for the video surveillance system installed in the place where it develops its economic activity, ***ADDRESS.1. 2. The complaining party provided services as an employee of the responding party. Such Services were provided in the premises where the system is installed. video surveillance outlined in the First Proven Fact. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 9/23 3. In relation to the video surveillance system outlined in the Proven Fact First, the Respondent provided the Complainant with two documents notices with the labels “Inform workers about the installation of cameras (Labor Control)” and “Informative Manual on the use of security systems video surveillance". In the first of them, which was delivered to the claimant on ***DATE.2, the installation of the surveillance camera is communicated "for the purposes: to guarantee the safety of workers, customers, users and all those who attend the interior of the company's facilities and to carry out a control of work performance of the workers of the company, during the development of the characteristic functions of his position. In the same document it is added "that the information obtained and stored by recording system will be used exclusively for the purposes of prevention, security, work performance control and protection of people and goods that are in the establishment or installation subject to protection”. The document "Informative Manual on the use of video surveillance systems", in the containing the handwritten signature of the complaining party, includes, among other things, the following information: “The use of cameras or camcorders for security purposes, implies in any case the capture, recording and storage of images that may contain character data staff. Capture or recording may consist of an image system, associated or not with the voice pickup. Both the physical image and the voice of people constitute personal data…”. . The claimed party, in its response to the claim transfer process, stated to this AEPD that the video surveillance system described in the Fact Tested First it has sound capture, as well as image capture. In this same response, the claimed party refers to the recording of a conversation held by the complaining party with "the clientele". . Dated ***DATE.1, the complaining party served the complaining party with a letter through which the termination of the employment relationship is communicated (dismissal letter). FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW Yo Competition In accordance with the powers that article 58.2 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter GDPR), grants each control authority and as established in articles 47, 48.1, 64.2 and 68.1 of the LOPDGDD, is competent to initiate and resolve this procedure the Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency. Likewise, article 63.2 of the LOPDGDD determines that: "Procedures C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 10/23 processed by the Spanish Data Protection Agency will be governed by the provisions in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in this organic law, by the provisions regulations dictated in its development and, insofar as they do not contradict them, with character subsidiary, by the general rules on administrative procedures”. II The image and voice are personal data The physical image and voice of a person, according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, are a Personal data and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In the article 4.2 of the GDPR defines the concept of "processing" of personal data. The images and voice captured by a system of cameras or video cameras are data of a personal nature, so its treatment is subject to the regulations of Data Protection. It is, therefore, pertinent to analyze whether the processing of personal data (image and voice of the complaining party, who served as an employee in the company of the complaining party claimed, and of the natural persons who come as clients to the establishment of said company, open to the public) carried out through the system of denounced video surveillance is in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR. II Infringement Article 6.1 of the GDPR establishes the assumptions that allow the use of processing of personal data. The permanent implantation of a system of video cameras for reasons of security has a legitimate basis in the LOPDGDD, the explanatory statement of which indicates: “Together with these assumptions, others are included, such as video surveillance… in which the legality of the treatment comes from the existence of a public interest, in the terms established in the Article 6.1.e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679”. Regarding treatment for video surveillance purposes, article 22 of the LOPDGDD establishes that natural or legal persons, public or private, may carry out carry out the treatment of images through systems of cameras or video cameras in order to preserve the safety of people and property, as well as their installations. This same article 22, in its section 8, provides that "The treatment by the Employer data obtained through camera or video camera systems will be submits to the provisions of article 89 of this organic law”. On the legitimacy for the implementation of video surveillance systems in the field labor, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1995, of 03/24, is taken into account, which approves the revised text of the Workers' Statute Law (LET), whose article 20.3 notes: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 11/23 "3. The employer may adopt the measures he deems most appropriate for surveillance and control to verify compliance by the worker with his labor obligations and duties, keeping in their adoption and application due consideration to their dignity and taking into account account, where appropriate, the real capacity of workers with disabilities. The permitted surveillance and control measures include the installation of security cameras, although these systems should always respond at first of proportionality, that is, the use of video cameras must be proportional to the purpose pursued, this is to guarantee the security and the fulfillment of the obligations and job duties. Article 89 of the LOPDPGDD, referring specifically to the "right to privacy against the use of video surveillance and sound recording devices in the place work" and the processing of personal data obtained with camera systems or video cameras for the exercise of control functions of the workers, allows that employers can process the images obtained through security systems cameras or camcorders for the exercise of the functions of control of the workers or public employees provided for, respectively, in article 20.3 of the Workers' Statute and in the civil service legislation, provided that These functions are exercised within its legal framework and with the limits inherent to the same. In relation to sound recording, the aforementioned article 89 of the LOPDGDD sets the following: "two. In no case will the installation of sound recording systems or video surveillance in places intended for the rest or recreation of workers or public employees, such as locker rooms, toilets, dining rooms and the like. 3. The use of systems similar to those referred to in the previous sections for the sound recording in the workplace will be allowed only when relevant risks to the safety of facilities, goods and people derived from the activity that it takes place in the workplace and always respecting the principle of proportionality, the minimum intervention and the guarantees provided for in the previous sections. the deletion of the sounds preserved by these recording systems will be made according to the provided in section 3 of article 22 of this law”. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that, according to the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, the recording conversations between workers or between them and customers is not justified for the verification of compliance by the worker with his obligations or duties. In a Judgment dated 04/10/2000 (2000/98), issued in rec. num. 4015/1996, it declares the following: In this sense, it must be taken into account that the managerial power of the employer, essential for the smooth running of the productive organization and expressly recognized in the art. 20 LET, attributes to the employer, among other powers, that of adopting the measures that deems more appropriate surveillance and control to verify the worker's compliance with their labor obligations (art. 20.3 LET). But this faculty must be produced in any case, As is logical, within due respect for the dignity of the worker, as we expressly It is reminded by the labor regulations (arts. 4.2.e and 20.3 LET)... ... it should be remembered that the jurisprudence of this Court has repeatedly insisted on the full effectiveness of the fundamental rights of the worker in the framework of the relationship C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 12/23 labor, since this cannot imply in any way the deprivation of such rights for those who serve in productive organizations... Consequently, and as This Court has also affirmed, the exercise of such rights only admits limitations or sacrifices to the extent that it develops within an organization which reflects other constitutionally recognized rights in arts. 38 and 33 CE and that It imposes, according to the assumptions, the necessary adaptability for the exercise of all of them... For this reason, the premise from which the Judgment under appeal starts, consisting of affirm that the workplace is not by definition a space in which the workers' right to privacy, in such a way that the conversations that maintain workers with each other and with customers in the performance of their work activity They are not covered by art. 18.1 EC and there is no reason why the company cannot know the content of those, since the aforementioned right is exercised in the field of private sphere of the worker, that in the workplace it must be understood limited to the places of rest or recreation, changing rooms, toilets or the like, but not to those places where work is carried out... …Such a statement is rejectable, since it cannot be ruled out that also in those places of the company where the work activity is carried out may produce illegitimate interference by the employer in the right to privacy of the workers, such as the recording of conversations between a worker and a client, or between the workers themselves, in which issues unrelated to the relationship are addressed that are integrated into what we have called the sphere of development of the individual (SSTC 231/1988, of December 2, FJ 4 and 197/1991, of October 17, FJ 3, by all). In short, it will be necessary to attend not only to the place in the workplace where they are installed by the company audiovisual control systems, but also to other elements of judgment (if the installation is done or not indiscriminately and massively, if the systems are visible or have been installed surreptitiously, the real purpose pursued with the installation of such systems, if there are security reasons, by the type of activity that takes place in the workplace in question, which justifies the implementation of such means of control, etc.) to elucidate in each specific case whether these means of surveillance and control respect the right to the privacy of workers. Certainly, the installation of such means in places of rest or recreation, changing rooms, toilets, dining rooms and the like is, a fortiori, harmful in any case, the right to privacy of workers, without further consideration, for obvious reasons... But this does not mean that this injury cannot occur in those places where the work activity is carried out, if any of the circumstances set out that allows classifying business action as an illegitimate intrusion into the right to privacy from the workers. It will be necessary, then, to attend to the concurrent circumstances in the supposed concrete to determine whether or not there is a violation of art. 18.1 EC. …its limitation [of the fundamental rights of the worker] by the powers business can only derive well from the fact that the very nature of work contracted involves the restriction of the right (SSTC 99/1994, FJ 7, and 106/1996, FJ 4), either an accredited business need or interest, without its mere invocation being sufficient to sacrifice the fundamental right of the worker (SSTC 99/1994, FJ 7, 6/1995, FJ 3 and 136/1996, FJ 7)… These limitations or modulations must be the indispensable and strictly necessary to satisfy a business interest deserving of guardianship and protection, in a manner that if there are other possibilities of satisfying said interest that are less aggressive and affect the right in question, it will be necessary to use the latter and not those more aggressive and affective. It is, ultimately, the application of the principle of proportionality... The question to be resolved is, therefore, whether the installation of microphones that allow the recording of conversations of workers and customers in certain areas... fits in the assumption C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 13/23 that occupies us with the essential requirements of respect for the right to privacy. To the In this regard, we must begin by pointing out that it is indisputable that the installation of devices for capturing and recording sound in two specific areas... it is not without utility for the business organization, especially if one takes into account that these are two areas in which economic transactions of some importance take place. Now, the mere utility or convenience for the company does not simply legitimize the installation of hearing aids and recording, given that the company already had other security systems than the Hearing system is intended to complement… In summary, the implementation of the audition and recording system has not been in this case in accordance with the principles of proportionality and minimum intervention that govern modulation of fundamental rights due to the requirements of the interest of the organization business, since the purpose pursued (to provide extra security, especially in the face of eventual customer claims) is disproportionate to the sacrifice that implies the right to privacy of workers (and even customers...). This system allows you to capture private comments, both from customers and workers..., comments completely unrelated to business interest and therefore irrelevant from the perspective of control of labor obligations, being able, however, to have negative consequences for workers who, in any case, will feel constrained to make any type of personal comment given the conviction that they are going to be heard and recorded by the company. It is, in short, an illegitimate interference in the right to privacy enshrined in art. 18.1 CE, since there is no definitive argument that authorize the company to listen and record the private conversations that the workers… keep with each other or with customers.” On the other hand, the processing of personal data is subject to the rest of the principles of treatment contained in article 5 of the GDPR. We will highlight the principle of data minimization contained in article 5.1.c) of the GDPR that provides that personal data shall be "adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed”. This means that in a specific treatment only the data can be processed timely personal, that come to the case and that are strictly necessary to fulfill the purpose for which they are processed. Treatment must be adjusted and proportional to the purpose to which it is directed. The relevance in the treatment of data must occur both at the time of data collection and at the time of subsequent treatment carried out on them. In accordance with the above, the processing of excessive data must be restricted or proceed to their deletion. The application of the principle of data minimization to the case examined entails that the installed camera or camcorder system cannot obtain images affecting the privacy of employees, making it disproportionate to capture images in private spaces, such as changing rooms, lockers or rest areas of workers. IV. Video surveillance obligations In accordance with the foregoing, the processing of images through a system video surveillance, to comply with current regulations, must comply with the following requirements: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 14/23 1.- Individuals or legal entities, public or private, can establish a system video surveillance in order to preserve the safety of people and property, as well as its facilities. It must be assessed whether the intended purpose can be achieved in another less intrusive to the rights and freedoms of citizens. Personal data only should be processed if the purpose of the processing cannot reasonably be achieved by other means, recital 39 of the GDPR. 2.- The images obtained cannot be used for a subsequent purpose incompatible with the one that motivated the installation of the video surveillance system. 3.- The duty to inform those affected provided for in articles 12 and 13 of the GDPR, and 22 of the LOPDGDD. In this sense, article 22 of the LOPDGDD provides in relation to video surveillance a “layered information” system. The first layer must refer, at least, to the existence of the treatment (video surveillance), the identity of the person responsible, the possibility of exercising the rights provided for in articles 15 to 22 of the GDPR and where to obtain more information about the processing of personal data. This information will be contained in a device placed in a sufficiently visible and must be provided in advance. Second layer information should be easily available in one place accessible to the affected person, whether it is an information sheet at a reception, cashier, etc…, placed in a visible public space or in a web address, and must refer to the other elements of article 13 of the GDPR. 4.- Images of the public thoroughfare cannot be captured, since the treatment of images in public places, unless there is government authorization, only It can be carried out by the Security Forces and Bodies. On some occasions, for the protection of private spaces, where cameras installed on facades or inside, may be necessary to ensure the security purpose the recording of a portion of the public thoroughfare. That is, cameras and camcorders installed for security purposes may not obtain images of public roads unless it is essential for said purpose, or it is impossible to avoid it due to their location. And in such a case extraordinary, the cameras will only be able to capture the minimum portion necessary to preserve the safety of people and property, as well as its facilities. Installed cameras cannot get images from third-party proprietary space and/or public space without duly accredited justified cause, nor can they affect the privacy of passers-by who move freely through the area. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 15/23 It is not allowed, therefore, the placement of cameras towards the private property of neighbors with the purpose of intimidating them or affecting their private sphere without cause justified. In no case will the use of surveillance practices beyond the environment be admitted. object of the installation and in particular, not being able to affect public spaces surroundings, adjoining buildings and vehicles other than those that access the space guarded. Images cannot be captured or recorded in spaces owned by third parties without the consent of their owners, or, where appropriate, of the people who are in them find. It is disproportionate to capture images in private spaces, such as changing rooms, lockers or rest areas for workers. 5.- The images may be kept for a maximum period of one month, except in those cases in which they must be kept to prove the commission of acts that threaten the integrity of people, property or facilities. In this second case, they must be made available to the authority competent authority within a maximum period of 72 hours from the knowledge of the recording existence. 6.- The controller must keep a record of processing activities carried out under his responsibility in which the information to which he makes reference article 30.1 of the GDPR. 7.- The person in charge must carry out a risk analysis or, where appropriate, an evaluation of impact on data protection, to detect those derived from the implementation of the video surveillance system, assess them and, where appropriate, adopt security measures. appropriate security. 8.- When a security breach occurs that affects the processing of cameras for security purposes, whenever there is a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons, you must notify the AEPD within a maximum period of 72 hours. A security breach is understood to be the destruction, loss or accidental alteration or unlawful transfer of personal data, stored or otherwise processed, or the communication or unauthorized access to said data. 9.- When the system is connected to an alarm center, it can only be installed by a qualified private security company contemplated in article 5 of Law 5/2014 on Private Security, of April 4. The Spanish Data Protection Agency offers through its website [https://www.aepd.es] access to: . the legislation on the protection of personal data, including the GDPR C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 16/23 and the LOPDGDD (section "Reports and resolutions" / "regulations"), . the Guide on the use of video cameras for security and other purposes, . the Guide for compliance with the duty to inform (both available at the section "Guides and tools"). It is also of interest, in case of carrying out low-risk data processing, the free tool Facilitates (in the "Guides and tools" section) that, through specific questions, allows to assess the situation of the person in charge with respect to the processing of personal data that it carries out, and where appropriate, generate various documents, informative and contractual clauses, as well as an annex with measures indicative security considered minimum. V administrative infraction The claim is based on the alleged illegality of the installed video surveillance system by the claimed party in the premises where it carries out its business activity, in related to sound recording. It is not disputed in this case the fact that the claimed party is the owner and responsible for the reported video surveillance system and, therefore, the person responsible for the data processing involved in the use of said system. And neither does he fact that among the data processing carried out is the collection and storage of personal data relating to the voice of employees and customers. It is proven in the proceedings, likewise, that said installation is carried out with safety and labor control purposes. For this reason, on ***DATE.2, the claimed party communicated to the party claimant the installation of the surveillance camera “for the purposes: to guarantee the safety of workers, customers, users and all those who attend the interior of the company's facilities and to carry out a control of work performance of the workers of the company, during the development of the characteristic functions of his position. In the same document delivered to the party claimant, in which his handwritten signature and the indicated date appear, also handwritten, it is added "that the information obtained and stored through the recording will be used exclusively for purposes of prevention, security, control of work performance and protection of people and goods that are in the establishment or installation subject to protection”. It is on record that the claimant was provided with a document labeled "Manual information on the use of video surveillance systems”, which includes, among other things, the following information: “The use of cameras or camcorders for security purposes, implies in any case the capture, recording and storage of images that may contain character data staff. Capture or recording may consist of an image system, associated or not with the voice pickup. Both the physical image and the voice of people constitute personal data…”. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 17/23 This is the only information provided to the complaining party about the recording of sounds, which is not conclusively presented (“may consist”; “associated or not”) so that the interested party can be certain about the capture and recording of personal data related to the voice of the workers. In its statement of allegations at the opening of the proceeding, the claimed party indicates that the complaining party admits having been aware of the installation of the system of video and voice in the document that it provides with said allegations and that called “Reconciliation Document”. However, in this document, prepared by the complaining party, it only refers to the recording of a conversation with a client through the aforementioned system, but it does not refer any to the specific fact of having had prior and certain knowledge of the installation of a sound recording system. In addition, the claimed party does not provide sufficient justification for these treatments. of data (sound recording), limiting itself to presenting the capture of sounds as the exercise of the employer's right to "establish the measures that he deems more timely monitoring and control to verify compliance by the worker of their labor obligations and duties”. The claimed party does not take into account the limits set forth in article 20.3 of the Law the Workers' Statute (LET); what is established in article 89.3 of the LOPDGDD, which admits the recording of sounds only when they are relevant risks and respecting the principles of proportionality and intervention minimal; nor the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, already expressed, according to which the recording conversations between workers or between them and customers is not justified for the verification of compliance by the worker with his obligations or duties. In response to the allegations made by the defendant regarding the possibilities in terms of adopting surveillance measures attributed to the entrepreneur his power of direction, it is interesting to highlight some of the aspects declared in the Judgment of the Constitutional Court dated 04/10/2000, reviewed in the Foundation of Law III: "...this power must occur in any case, as is logical, with due respect for the dignity of the worker, as the labor regulations expressly remind us (arts. 4.2.e and 20.3 LET)…”. "It must therefore be rejected... that the conversations that the workers maintain with each other and with clients in the performance of their work activity are not covered by art. 18.1…”. “…its limitation [of the fundamental rights of the worker] by the powers business can only derive well from the fact that the very nature of work contracted involves the restriction of the right (SSTC 99/1994, FJ 7, and 106/1996, FJ 4), either an accredited business need or interest, without its mere invocation being sufficient to sacrifice the fundamental right of the worker (SSTC 99/1994, FJ 7, 6/1995, FJ 3 and 136/1996, FJ 7)… These limitations or modulations must be the indispensable and strictly necessary…”. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 18/23 “…the mere utility or convenience for the company does not simply legitimize the installation of the listening and recording equipment, given that the company already had other security systems that the hearing system intends to complement…”. The claimed party states that the images captured by the video surveillance made it possible to demonstrate that the complaining party misused the company's machinery and caused loss of material and time, which led to interest in activating sound recording for further monitoring exhaustive to the claimant, as a company worker. It does not explain, on the other hand, what the recording of conversations between the complaining party and clients, in order to prove those circumstances, which do not contribute the mere recording of images, so that it is not sufficiently estimated substantiated the activation of the sound recording system referred to in the claimed part. This is in the event that the events occur as indicated. by the defendant, who has not provided any evidence in this regard. What does exist is that there was a recording of a conversation between the complaining party and a client. Nor has it provided any proof of the circumstances that allegedly determined the collection of voice data from the complaining party. Neither Even such circumstances were asserted against the claim for dismissal unfair. Faced with the opening of the procedure, the defendant emphasizes, on the other hand, that the audio recording was carried out in accordance with the provisions of article 89 of the LOPDGDD given that said recording was not made in places intended for rest or in places where private conversations took place. However, not takes into account the claimed party that this article, beyond the prohibition of use these video surveillance and sound recording systems in "places intended for the rest or recreation of workers or public employees, such as changing rooms, toilets, dining rooms and the like”, expressly and with character In general, it establishes the submission of such systems to the legal framework and with the limits inherent to it, already indicated above (those provided for in article 20.3 of the Workers' Statute Law (LET); what is established in article 89.3 of the LOPDGDD; and the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, which does not admit the recording of conversations between workers and customers to verify compliance by the worker of his obligations or duties). This implies that it cannot be understood as legitimate, without further condition, any system that does not include those spaces, as claimed by the defendant. Also in his statement of allegations at the opening of the proceeding, the party claimed invokes a Constitutional Court Judgment 39/2016, of 03/03/2016, in which the amparo appeal filed by a person is dismissed who was dismissed based on images captured by a security camera video surveillance. It is, however, a case in which audio is not captured and in which duly justified the proportionality of the measure adopted by the employer, taking into account the concurrent circumstances in the analyzed case (“the filming was confined to the observation of the space in which the box was located register, examining its handling by the employees having been warned from C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 19/23 substantial mismatches in its accounting some time ago”). Subsequently, in its pleadings to the resolution proposal, the party The defendant denies that there is any audio recording, despite the fact that in its earlier writings acknowledged such existence and that the repeated audio recording is expressly cited in the dismissal letter provided to the proceedings by the party claimant. Specifically, in its response to the transfer process, the defendant admits that the system has audio capture and that this option was activated to follow up on the complaining party. In the same writing it is done reference to the complaints that the complaining party expresses to the clientele about the state of the machinery (after warning about the misuse of the machinery that performs the complaining party and admitting the activation of the audio, it is indicated: "In the following days another fact is observed, the worker complains to the clientele about the machinery of the business…"). The mere fact of activating the sound recording already implies in itself a collection of personal data related to the voice of the complaining party that requires a database legitimate to carry it out. In addition, in the dismissal letter prepared by the claimed party it is indicated expressly the following: "4. Finally, also discovered in the recordings reviewed yesterday, it was listen to a conversation on March 4, 2022, in which you complain to a client about the state of the machinery…”. Consequently, in this case, voice capture is understood to be disproportionate. both of the complaining party and of clients of the claimed party for the function of intended video surveillance, for the control of compliance by the complaining party of their job obligations and duties. It is taken into account that the voice recording It represents a further intrusion into privacy. Lastly, it should be noted that this conclusion is in no way affected by the fact that the party claimed will accept as unfair the dismissal of the claiming party, without making worth repeat recording. The determining factor for the purposes of this proceeding is that the processing of the complaining party's voice data was carried out by the claimed party without any legal basis that legitimizes said data processing. Therefore, it is considered that the claimed party carried out data processing without have a legitimate basis, contrary to the provisions of article 6 of the GDPR, which that supposes the commission of an infraction typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, which provides the following: Violations of the following provisions will be sanctioned, in accordance with the paragraph 2, with administrative fines of maximum EUR 20,000,000 or, in the case of a company, an amount equivalent to a maximum of 4% of the total annual global business volume of the previous financial year, opting for the highest amount: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 20/23 a) the basic principles for the treatment, including the conditions for the consent in accordance with articles 5, 6, 7 and 9;”. For the purposes of the limitation period for infringements, the infringement indicated in the previous paragraph is considered very serious in accordance with article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD, which states that: "Based on what is established in article 83.5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, are considered very serious and will prescribe after three years the infractions that a substantial violation of the articles mentioned therein and, in particular, the following: b) The processing of personal data without the fulfillment of any of the conditions of legality of the treatment established in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679”. SAW Sanction Article 58.2 of the GDPR establishes: "Each control authority will have all the following corrective powers indicated below: (...) d) order the person in charge or person in charge of treatment that the operations of treatment comply with the provisions of this Regulation, where appropriate, in a certain way and within a specified period; (...) i) impose an administrative fine in accordance with article 83, in addition to or instead of the measures mentioned in this paragraph, according to the circumstances of each particular case". According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the measure provided for in article 58.2.d) of the aforementioned Regulation is compatible with the sanction consisting of a fine administrative. With regard to violations of Article 6 of the GDPR, based on the facts exposed and without prejudice to what results from the instruction of the procedure, it is considers that the sanction that should be imposed is an administrative fine. The fine imposed must be, in each individual case, effective, proportionate and dissuasive, in accordance with the provisions of article 83.1 of the GDPR. In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR and article 76 of the LOPDGDD, regarding the section k) of the aforementioned article 83.2 GDPR. The following graduation criteria are considered concurrent as aggravating factors: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 21/23 . Article 83.2.b) of the GDPR: "b) intentionality or negligence in the infringement". The installation of an audio recording system and its use to record the conversations that the complaining party could have had with other people It is done at the initiative of the claimed party, intentionally. . Article 83.2.d) of the GDPR: "d) the degree of responsibility of the controller or the processor, taking into account the technical or organizational measures that applied by virtue of articles 25 and 32”. The claimed party does not have adequate procedures in place for action in the collection and processing of personal data, in what refers to the collection and processing of personal data relating to the voice of the employee in your company, so that the violation is not the result of an anomaly in the operation of these procedures but a defect in the management system of the personal data designed by the person in charge. Likewise, the following circumstances are considered mitigating: . Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR: "a) the nature, seriousness and duration of the infringement, taking into account the nature, scope or purpose of the processing operation in question as well as the number of interested parties affected and the level of damage and damages they have suffered”. . The number of interested parties: the use of the video surveillance system to labor control affects only the complaining party, as it is the only a worker of the company at the time the events take place. . Article 76.2.b) of the LOPDGDD: "b) The link between the offender's activity and the processing of personal data”. The scarce connection of the claimed party with the performance of treatment of personal data, considering the activity carried out. . Article 83.2.k) of the GDPR: "k) any other aggravating or mitigating factor applicable to the circumstances of the case, such as the financial benefits obtained or the losses avoided, directly or indirectly, through the infringement”. . The status of microenterprise of the claimed party, which develops its activity business as private . The low volume of data and processing that constitutes the object of the proceedings. Considering the exposed factors, the valuation reached by the fine for the Violation of article 6 of the GDPR is 6,000 euros (six thousand euros). It should be noted that the defendant has not made any claim against the factors and graduation criteria set forth. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 22/23 VII Measures Considering the declared infringement, it is appropriate to impose the person responsible (the party claimed) the adoption of appropriate measures to adjust its performance to the regulations mentioned in this act, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned article 58.2 d) of the GDPR, according to which each control authority may “order the controller or processor that the processing operations are comply with the provisions of this Regulation, where appropriate, in a certain manner and within a specified period…”. The text of the resolution establishes which have been the infractions committed and the facts that have given rise to the violation of the regulations for the protection of data, from which it is clearly inferred what are the measures to adopt, without prejudice that the type of procedures, mechanisms or concrete instruments for implement them corresponds to the sanctioned party, since it is responsible for the treatment who fully knows its organization and has to decide, based on the proactive responsibility and risk approach, how to comply with the GDPR and the LOPDGDD. However, in this case, regardless of the foregoing, it is agreed to require the responsible so that, within the period indicated in the operative part, it proves that proceeded to suppress the capture of sounds by the object video surveillance system of the performances. It is noted that not meeting the requirements of this body may be considered as an administrative offense in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR, classified as an infraction in its article 83.5 and 83.6, being able to motivate such conduct the opening of a subsequent administrative sanctioning procedure. Therefore, in accordance with the applicable legislation and assessed the criteria of graduation of sanctions whose existence has been accredited, the Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 6 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, and classified as very serious to effects of prescription in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of 6,000 euros (six thousand euros). SECOND: REQUEST B.B.B., within a month, counted from the notification of this resolution, adapt its action to the regulations of protection of personal data, with the scope expressed in the Basis of Law VII, and justify before this Spanish Data Protection Agency the attention to this requirement. THIRD: NOTIFY this resolution to B.B.B.. FOURTH: Warn the sanctioned party that he must enforce the sanction imposed Once this resolution is enforceable, in accordance with the provisions of Article C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 23/23 art. 98.1.b) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public Administrations (hereinafter LPACAP), within the payment period voluntary established in art. 68 of the General Collection Regulations, approved by Royal Decree 939/2005, of July 29, in relation to art. 62 of Law 58/2003, of December 17, by means of its income, indicating the NIF of the sanctioned and the number of procedure that appears in the heading of this document, in the account restricted number ES00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000, open in the name of the Agency Spanish Data Protection Agency at the bank CAIXABANK, S.A.. In the event Otherwise, it will proceed to its collection in the executive period. Once the notification has been received and once executed, if the execution date is between the 1st and 15th of each month, both inclusive, the term to make the payment voluntary will be until the 20th day of the following or immediately following business month, and if between the 16th and the last day of each month, both inclusive, the payment term It will be until the 5th of the second following or immediately following business month. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, this Resolution will be made public once the interested parties have been notified. Against this resolution, which puts an end to the administrative process in accordance with art. 48.6 of the LOPDGDD, and in accordance with the provisions of article 123 of the LPACAP, the Interested parties may optionally file an appeal for reversal before the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection within a period of one month from count from the day following the notification of this resolution or directly contentious-administrative appeal before the Contentious-administrative Chamber of the National Court, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of the fourth additional provision of Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Contentious-administrative jurisdiction, within a period of two months from the day following the notification of this act, as provided for in article 46.1 of the referred Law. Finally, it is noted that in accordance with the provisions of art. 90.3 a) of the LPACAP, may provisionally suspend the firm resolution in administrative proceedings if the The interested party expresses his intention to file a contentious-administrative appeal. If this is the case, the interested party must formally communicate this fact through writing addressed to the Spanish Data Protection Agency, presenting it through of the Electronic Registry of the Agency [https://sedeagpd.gob.es/sede-electronica- web/], or through any of the other registries provided for in art. 16.4 of the aforementioned Law 39/2015, of October 1. You must also transfer to the Agency the documentation proving the effective filing of the contentious appeal- administrative. If the Agency was not aware of the filing of the appeal contentious-administrative proceedings within a period of two months from the day following the Notification of this resolution would terminate the precautionary suspension. 938-120722 Mar Spain Marti Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es