AEPD (Spain) - PS/00430/2018

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 14:39, 13 December 2023 by Ar (talk | contribs) (Ar moved page AEPD - PS/00430/2018 to AEPD (Spain) - PS/00430/2018)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
AEPD - PS/00430/2018
Authority: AEPD (Spain)
Jurisdiction: Spain
Relevant Law: Article 4(7) GDPR
Article 6(1)(f) GDPR
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Upheld
Decided: n/a
Published: 14. 2. 2020
Fine: n/a n/a
Parties: A.A.A.
City Council of Ribadedeva
National Case Number/Name: PS/00430/2018
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: n/a
Original Language(s): Spanish
Original Source: AEPD (in ES)
Initial Contributor: n/a

The Spanish DPA (AEPD) held that a mayor was the controller for personal data shared on their personal Facebook page, and not the City Council, because the former decided on the purposes and means alone.

English Summary


The data subject was party to a workplace harassment suit against the mayor and lodged a complaint with the Spanish DPA (AEPD) after the mayor posted the unredacted court decision on his personal Facebook page, in combination with other personal data concerning the data subject.

The mayor claimed the posting of the data subject’s personal data was covered by Article 6(1)(f) as a legal basis.

In their investigation, the DPA assessed whether the City Council was a controller or joint-controller for the data, and thus could be party to the complaint.


In its decision, the DPA highlighted that the City Council was the owner of the files containing personal data related to development of labour relations. However, the DPA emphasized that a distinction must be made between the processing carried out by the City Council and the individuals who act on their instructions, and individuals who belongs to the City Council but act independently.

With that in mind, the DPA concluded that the City Council did not determine the purposes and means of the processing of personal data on the mayor's Facebook page. As such, the DPA declared that the City Council was not responsible for the alleged infringement of Article 6(1)(f).


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 **Spanish** original. Please refer to the **Spanish** original for more details.

Procedure Nº: PS / 00430/2018
The procedure instructed by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection (AEPD)
and based on the following
FIRST: AAA (hereinafter, the claimant) dated 09/19/2018 filed a claim
forward, the claimed). The grounds on which the claim is based are that the claimant
He served in the City Council of RIBADEDEVA and, as such, engaged
a social action lawsuit against the City Council and *** POSITION.1 as part
co-commanded He states that “ the claimant has set out the *** DATE.1 on his page of
FACEBOOK the sentence integrates with all the data and other circumstances being able
access it any person. "
Provides a copy of the complaint before the Civil Guard of *** DATE. 2 indicating that
the ruling of the Social Court number *** NUMBER 1 of Oviedo of *** DATE.3 , is
is in the social network of FACEBOOK by BBB , *** current POSITION of
Provides printing of the FACEBOOK page of the respondent, where its
name and surname and photo, without mentioning the City Hall, which highlights some
Comments with the title IMPORTANT OFFICIAL COMMUNICATE . Although it is not read
properly, the complete reference to the name of the claimant and the claim
filed against the City Council and the and that they have been acquitted, and that accompanies
the sentence “ where the plaintiffs ' lies ” are evident ”and
Attached, the complete sentence. The writing is signed by BBB with the addition of *** POSITION 1 of the
Ribadedeva City Council and comments on the information. In the sentence, the
Claimant is plaintiff against City Hall and D. BBB as defendant.
SECOND: In view of the facts and documents provided by the claimant, at
claimed, address of the City Council, a copy of the claim is sent through the
AEPD, to send:
Copy of the communications and of the decision taken that you have submitted to the complaint
maintain about the transfer of this claim.
Report on the causes that have caused the incident that caused the complaint

Report on the measures taken to avoid similar occurrences
With date *** DATE. 4 , he states in his response the TOWN HALL signed by
*** POSITION. 1 , BBB , the claimed, indicating:
1) The claimant provides services for the City Council and has filed a lawsuit in
the Social Court requesting the termination of their employment contract derived from
Article 50 of the Workers' Statute, due to workplace harassment , and breach
repeated foundations of the City Council, requesting compensation of € 50,000
for moral damages. The content of the sentence reveals the vicissitudes in the relations
Claimants' relationships with a partner and other personal circumstances of the re-
claimant in the provision of services such as transfer to another plant and reallocation
tion of tasks among employees. The defendant states that the day after
the sentence being notified, *** DATE.1 , the claimant on his FACEBOOK wall
published a message that provides a copy in which it begins "it is sad to have to
come to trial so that two days before it, the defendant does what he had
than having done five months before, which has largely motivated the
Manda be dismissed. I already knew when I filed the lawsuit the difficulty of
accredit a situation of harassment at work in a public administration
but if I had not gone to court, this matter would be involved in
an unresolved drawer, and my personal and professional dignity questioned in writing, what
that in any way can admit ... It has been clarified that my behavior
as an employee and co-worker it has been correct. ” Thanks neighborhood support
and ends indicating that it will be presented to the next elections.
Before said comments, the respondent states:
He stated the sentence before the claimant's intention to misrepresent the content
do and failure of the same that was unfavorable.
In the same social network FACEBOOK made a statement in which it began
za indicating that “ a person linked to the City Council is trying to manipulate
with falsehoods and half truths to local public opinion in relation to an issue
labor. Said person filed a labor lawsuit against the City Council and
against my person on 06/22 ”, refers the name and surnames, which are contained in the fa-
llo of the sentence, and points out that for being illustrative and “ to prove the facts more
that the malicious demonstrations without any evidence ” “ I accompany in this
message the integral sentence ”for understanding that it indicates that there is no indication
some of professional damage or attack on their dignity. Along with those comments are
view the exposed sentence, which provides full copy.
It states that there is legitimacy for it derived from the article
6.1. c) and 6.1.e) and at individual level 6.1.f) of the GDPR for the serious accusations that
poured into his demand and 69 and 70 bis 3 of the LBRL.
He adds that the publicity of personal data itself as the situation
The claimant's oral and health have been disclosed by the claimant himself to
many neighbors of the Council considering that it discards the possible illicitness of the treatment
The subject of the claim.

In addition, there was a clear public interest as shown by the fact that
sat citizen signatures in support or in the interests of the claimant (it contributes
pious of them).
2) From the reading of the judgment of *** DATE. 3 , it is clear among other elements:
- Lawsuit is filed against the City Council and D. BBB as
defendant, in the sentence they also refer to this as mayor.
- In proven facts, a co-worker of the
complainant and details the situation of conflict and tension between the two, the harassment
and harassment that the employee says she suffers and the request for measures to
solve the situation that the claimant made to the City Council. They relate
the actions of the mayor gathering before complaints to both employees,
the reallocation of tasks and the transfer to the second floor of the plaintiff,
And the interviews. The status of the complainant in an IT situation is mentioned
since 03/23/2018 “ due to anxiety disorder, which continues ”. Is contained
the agreement of *** POSITION 1 of *** DATE. 5 of reallocation of tasks.
- On the basis of law, the judge refers that the plaintiff pre
Tends to terminate the contract based on workplace harassment . Enter to assess
Cha question.
- On the basis of law it is indicated that “ there is no appreciation of existence
of any indication determining any situation of harassment, persecution
degradation or attack on the personal and labor dignity of the plaintiff ”” or
“ The Mayor here sued as the author of the persecution that the
plaintiff denounces, after the briefs submitted by the parties on 25 and
30/01 met with them ... it is indicated that the mayor intended was to try
solve the confrontation ”. The demand is dismissed.
3) Provides a copy of the letter delivered to the claimant on 11/22/2018 in which
details explanations of the reasons why the sentence is dismissed by dismissing the petition
tion made before the AEPD.
THIRD: On 11/29/2018, the claim is admitted for processing.
FOURTH: On 05/22/2019, the claimant's letter is received requesting to know
the situation of the file. In writing of 06/25/2019, you are informed that the
PS / 00430/2018 of warning against CITY COUNCIL OF RIBADEDEVA
( *** POSITION 1 ) and its maximum duration. You are told that at the time the decision is issued
solution that ends the procedure, a new communication will be sent to you
forming the publication of said resolution on the Agency's website.
FIFTH: On 05/27/2019, the director of the AEPD agreed:
RIBADEDEVA (Mayor) for the alleged violation of article 6.1.f) typified in the
Article 83.5 a) of the GDPR.
with the provisions of article 58.2 d) of the GDPR, so that you can withdraw the copy of the sentence
Exposed from the FACEBOOK page of *** POSITION. 1
SIXTH: BBB , stating as *** POSITION 1 of RIBADEDEVA presents
allegations on 06/12/2019 stating:
a) The copy of the sentence was removed from the FACEBOOK page on 06/06/2019 upon receipt
The starting agreement.
b) Reiterates the argument that it presented the integral judgment so that the public opinion
Know the circumstances and limit the previous manifestation of the claimant in
FACEBOOK indicating that two days before the trial the defendant had made
something I should have done before, with no aspect of that
statement in the sentence. Reiterates that transparency and the right to inform
the neighbors concur with the publication in said page of FACEBOOK.
c) Reiterates several criteria of legality in the treatment, articles 6.1. c), e) and f) of the GDPR
which links with article 69 of Law 7/1985 of 2/04 of the rules of the local regime,
also referring to the law 19/2013 of 9/12, of Transparency and Access to the
public information (LT) article 5.
d) Add that the legitimate interest of the Mayor is higher by more qualified because
responds to the claims made by the claimant in the social network on 09/12/2018,
that was trying to misrepresent the fault they needed from the comprehensive exposition of the
judgment and its proven facts. The legitimate interest is based on the protection of your
right to honor and to the image itself for the accusations made against him.
SEVENTH: On 06/27/2019 the claimant submits a letter indicating that it has been opened
initial agreement against the City Council, when its complaint was addressed to the natural person
which holds the City Hall of said city council, which publishes in its own profile of
FACEBOOK, profile that lacks any reference to the City Council. Manifest request
the revision of the agreement and its correction.
Provides a copy of a screen print, date *** DATE. 6 on which the web is viewed
City Hall, and a link to a BBB FACEBOOK page , although it indicates that
Now it doesn't work. The photo that matches the profile on the BBB page can be seen
In FACEBOOK that this brings in this or the claimant contributed to this procedure.
It also accompanies the FACEBOOK profile printout of the personal account of
BBB , stating that “ at no time does it refer to the fact of being
*** POSITION. 1 Ribadedeva in your profile information . "
Claimant's new brief of 08/05/2019 for the complaint to be considered
It was against BBB , not the City Council nor as *** POSITION . 1 . Provide a writing in which
distinguishes two ways to appear on FACEBOOK; a profile and a page of
FACEBOOK, being a profile a personal account, “ which is used for a non-commercial purpose and
Represents individuals. The first time you sign up for Facebook, you are granted a profile.
Your profile is where to add friends and family and share personal photos, videos and
updates of your life . ” ” While all updates are public, only
People who have added you as a friend can see your content. Users who do not
be your friends will be able to access the public publications of your profile, but they will not be able to see
nothing you've shared especially with friends or custom groups . ”
“ On the other hand, a Facebook page is a business account that represents
a company, an organization, a public figure, etc. It is similar to a profile of
Facebook, but offers unique tools to manage and monitor the
interaction and participation . ”
“ While you can only have a single Facebook Profile related to your name, you can
have an unlimited number of Pages associated with your account. Unlike the
Profiles, several people can manage and contribute to a Page using their own
Facebook startup information.
“The pages are great for generating followers online because they are not limited to
the number of friend requests. Instead, users just have to click on
the Like button to start receiving updates . ”
EIGHTH: On 11/28/2019 a resolution is issued with the literal:
“ That the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection be sanctioned with
of Article 6.1.f) of the GDPR, in accordance with Article 83.5 of the GDPR ”.
In the face of it, no allegations have been received. 
1) The claimant, administrative assistant labor employee of the City Council of
RIBADEDEVA filed on 06/25/2018 lawsuit before the Social Court against D.
BBB and the RIBADEDEVA City Council requesting the termination of the employment relationship by
violation of their rights and compensation of 50 thousand euros for damages. The
lawsuit ended with judgment of *** DATE . 3 . The sentence refers to D.
BBB as *** POSITION 1 , chief of staff and its dictated resolutions. The
lawsuit “ dismisses the one filed by the claimant, absolving the defendants of the
claims deducted against him ”.
2) The judgment assesses the alleged labor harassment by the claimant, the bad ones
relationships with a claimant's partner, who is identified with names and
Surname, written by her before *** POSITION.1 referring to the working environment with
the claimant, the claimant's plant change as a result of a meeting of
*** POSITION 1 with the parties on 02/02/2018. The sentence determines that it is not appreciated
existence of any indication that determines any situation of harassment, persecution,
degradation or attack on the personal and labor dignity of the plaintiff " Al *** POSITION. 1 ,
here sued as the author of the persecution that the plaintiff denounces ... met
with them ... and that the plaintiff stated that he did not want to be on the ground floor, therefore
it is not explained what kind of reprisal is that when you are accessing what your own
actor requested “ there is not the slightest indication that there has been a conduct of
*** POSITION 1 aimed at prosecuting or harming the plaintiff, rather the opposite . ”
In the ninth proven fact it is indicated that the plaintiff “ passed to the IT situation by
anxie disorder d the 23/03/2018, in which continuous ".
The claimant exhibited on his FACEBOOK page, associated with his name and surname
a message on *** DATE 1 at 18:21 indicated “ Today is a great day” in which he states that “It is
sad to get to trial so that two days before the defendant does what he had to
having done 5 months before, which has largely motivated the demand to be
dismissed ”, without explaining what he means, he continues to indicate that“ he knew that when
he filed the lawsuit, it would be difficult for him to prove the harassment at work ”, which“ is clarified
that your behavior as an employee and co-worker has been correct ”, that
"He has been working as a public employee for 18 months ," thanks the neighborhood support received and
announces that it will enter politics ”.
After seeing BBB, Mayor of RIBADEDEVA, the claimant's announcement on FACEBOOK,
in the same social network FACEBOOK, on a page with the name BBB, without
any reference to the City Council , presented a written response entitled " COMMUNICATED
OFFICIAL ”noting that“ some people linked to the City Council are trying to
manipulate local public opinion with falsehoods and half-truths in relation to a
labor issue that should never have left the town hall walls ”.
It indicates that said person filed his claim on 06/22/2018 against him and the
City Hall, accusing him of workplace harassment and asking for compensation. Quote the literal
of the ruling with the name of the claimant. He says that in the face of demonstrations
malicious, exposes the integral sentence . Add to your writing with your name and
Surname, the position of *** POSITION . 1 Ribadedeva.
The claimant who removed the sentence during the processing of this
procedure, upon receiving the start agreement.
Under the powers that Article 58.2 of the GDPR recognizes each authority of
control, and as established in arts. 47 and 48.1 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the
Spanish Agency for Data Protection is competent to resolve this procedure.
To analyze the infringement charged, we start from the principle of publicity of the
judicial proceedings, constitutionalized by art. 120.1 CE, and to which reference is made
in different precepts of the Organic Law of the Judiciary (articles 232, 234, 235 and
266.1). Article 232 LOPJ states " 1 The judicial proceedings shall be public, with the
exceptions established by the laws of procedure.
2. Exceptionally, for reasons of public order and protection of rights and
liberties, Judges and Courts, may by reasoned resolution limit the scope
of advertising and agree on the secret nature of all or part of the actions ".
Article 234 LOPJ prescribes " The Secretaries and competent personnel of the
Courts and Tribunals will provide interested parties how much information they request about the
status of legal proceedings, which they may examine and know, unless they are or
would have been declared secret according to the law. In the same cases, the
testimonies requested, with the expression of the addressee, except in cases where the
law provide otherwise . "
Article 235 LOPJ refers to access by interested parties to books, files and
judicial records that are not reserved and article 266 indicates that
will allow any interested party access to the sentence text.
The STS of March 3, 1995, appeal 1218/1991, states in relation to the
publicity of judicial proceedings ".. that the right and correlative duty of
knowledge and access to the text of court decisions is graduated based on three
various areas or spheres of involvement, each governed by various criteria, namely: a)
one of maximum amplitude or generalized affectation, which includes the public or
citizens in general, without specific qualification and that corresponds to the publicity of the
judicial proceedings developed in all kinds of processes, which allows those
go to the practice of errands that must take place "at a public hearing", except for the
Reservation statement that the court organizes by reason, principle of
constitutionalized advertising in art. 120.1 of the Fundamental Standard and which includes art.
232.1 of the Organic Law.
b) at the opposite extreme, of maximum restriction of the scope of knowledge of the
judicial decisions, are the acts of notification and communication of these, directed
only to those who have the status of procedural part under the laws of
procedure, and that as regards the sentences determine the right and correlative duty
of the Judges and Courts to their knowledge through the instrumental act of notification,
as prescribed by art. 270 LOPJ.
c) occupying an intermediate position that places the issue in a more imprecise scope,
find the procedural actions already completed, including sentences, integrated into
books, archives or judicial records, and in respect of which, on the one hand, art. 235 LOPJ
determines that: «the interested parties will have access to the books, archives and judicial records
that are not reserved, through the forms of exhibition, testimony or
certification established by law »
Regarding the quality of the interested party for the purposes described, it is specified in the
said judgment that " the legitimate interest that is enforceable in the case, can only be recognized
in whom, natural or legal person, manifests and accredits, at least prima facie, before the
judicial body, a connection of concrete and singular character well with the object of the
process and, therefore, of the sentence that ended it in the instance, either with any of the
procedural acts through which it has been developed and which are documented in
autos, connection that, on the other hand, is subject to two conditions: a) that does not
affects fundamental rights of the procedural parties or of those who in some way
have intervened in the process, to essentially safeguard the right to
personal and family privacy and intimacy, honor and the right to self image that
it could eventually affect those people; and b) that if the information is used,
as a mediating activity, to satisfy the rights or interests of third parties, and in
consequence acquires, as is the case, an aspect of globality or generality by
relationship not to a specific process, such interest remains within the scope of the
legal system and its applicators, in general, as otherwise it would be
as well as making the judicial body participant or collaborator in tasks or activities that, by
very lawful they may be, they undermine their jurisdictional function » .."
The doctrine established in said judgment has been reiterated in the SSTS of 22 of
May 1996 and April 6, 2001, resource 9448/1996.
Also the SAN (1st) of November 29, 2001, resource 531/2000 echoes the
doctrine set by the aforementioned STS of March 3, 1995, and states that " the data contained
in books and judicial records they are not publicly available
entirely free and indiscriminate since access to them is regulated and in certain
restricted measure. On the one hand, by the appeal made by the aforementioned articles 235 and
2666.1 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary on the condition of "interested", of whose
significance and scope we already know the jurisprudential interpretation. On the other hand, because
access to such books and files is mediated by the necessary intervention of the
Judicial Secretary and the mandatory subject to the application process and authorization regulated in
Articles 1 to 5 of Regulation 5/1995, of June 7, of the General Council of Power
Judicial, on accessory aspects of judicial proceedings . "
That is, and for what we are interested in here, the publicity of the judicial proceedings does not
means that the data contained in a judicial proceeding that is in the phase of
execution, can be examined and are available to the general public of
totally free and indiscriminate, but that advertising is restricted except
those actions held in public hearing to those who hold the condition
of "interested parties", to which article 234 LOPJ appeals. This concept of interested, not
it necessarily coincides with that of the procedural part and which has been outlined by the
jurisprudence in the sense described above.
To finish with the examination of jurisprudence and regulations on this matter
It should be noted that the jurisprudential criteria set forth is consistent with the position
maintained by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court when weighting the publicity of the sen-
you had the right to honor, establishing in your judgment of December 22, 2008
the next:
“The publicity of judgments constitutes an instrument of guarantee of independence.
decision of the courts and their performance according to law, as these principles
are reinforced by knowledge of the actions of the courts by citizens,
and should be considered closely linked to the protection of fundamental rights
inherent in the exercise of jurisdictional power by judges and courts.
This advertising can only be restricted or limited, as established
in the law, when it may entail the impairment of a fundamental right of citizens
give us affected or a constitutionally protected good, especially when the
knowledge of the private data contained in the judgment may lead to
the disclosure of aspects of privacy that should be protected, provided that
This disclosure is not protected by the right to information within the framework of the
Free public munication proper to a democratic society.
In effect, according to STC 57/2004, of April 19, FJ 5 (in the same sense,
pecto of the publication of the sentences of the Constitutional Court, ATC 516/2004, of 20
December, FJ 1, and STC 114/2006, FJ 7), the principles of weighting and proportional-
can lead to the conclusion that other fundamental rights or property with
Constitutional protection must take precedence over the publicity of judgments
This principle is applied by article 266.1 II LOPJ, introduced by LO
19/2003, of December 23, according to which «[e] l access to the text of the sentences, or from
finished ends thereof, may be restricted when it could
affect the right to privacy, the rights of people who require a special
duty of guardianship or the guarantee of anonymity of the victims or injured parties, when appropriate
it gives, as well as, in general, to prevent sentences from being used with
nes contrary to the laws.
When the publication of a judicial resolution may affect the honor of the person
na that has obtained an unfavorable result in the process, it is necessary to determine whether
The exception that the LPDH establishes in the sense of considering non-existent the violation
ration of the scope protected by this right when it is the product of the exercise of a right
recognized by the legal system (art. 2.2 LPDH: «The existence of
illegitimate interference in the protected area when expressly authorized by
The contrast between the right to honor and the right to publicize the content of the
judgment, which results from the principle of publicity, should result in a weighting in the
that the fulfillment of the institutional purposes that the
Advertising principle pursues. This aspect, in turn, requires taking into account the
ma in which the publication has been produced, taking into account whether it is a communication
neutral citation of the content of the sentence or if elements that are sus- tained are added or subtracted
likely to distort the objective knowledge of the court's decision to convert the
publication of the judgment in a procedure suitable to undermine the honor of the person concerned
tada, beyond what objectively implies in the field of reputation the failure of
an action or opposition held before the courts of justice.
Well, it is clear that the principle of publicity of sentences that contain
templa our LOPJ is not absolute, but finds limits, either by referring to
who hold the status of interested parties or because of the prevalence of other rights
or goods that enjoy constitutional protection, as with the right to protection
of data, the latter issue that has been examined in the foundation of previous law.
Finally, it should be noted that the constitutional doctrine contained in the STC
114/2006, of April 5, only confirms what has been exposed so far, because in it the Tri-
Constitutional bunal is limited to extract from a joint reading of articles 120 and 164.1
EC and Articles 86.2 and 99.2 LOTC - in its wording prior to the reform operated by the
Organic Law 6/2007, of May 24-, placed in relation to Articles 9.1 CE and 5.1
LOPJ, a constitutional requirement for maximum dissemination and publicity of the full content of
the jurisdictional resolutions of that Court that incorporate constitutional doctrine, which
it is specified, on the one hand, in the formal obligation to publish such resolutions in the
Official Gazette, and in a material obligation to give greater accessibility and public dissemination
to their content, regardless of their nature and the process in which they
dictate and, on the other, in that the publicity and diffusion has to affect the entire resolution.
It is significant that for this the Constitutional Court is especially supported
in art. 164.1 CE establishes, which preaches it establishes, beyond even the principle
general publicity of judicial proceedings and their resolutions of art. 120 CE, one
specific constitutional requirement for maximum dissemination and publicity of legal resolutions
of this Court.
Moreover, it highlights the nuances that differentiate the principle of publicity from sentences.
Cias of the Constitutional Court of the judgments of the Judiciary, by limiting the
Applicability to that of the regime established in this regard by the LOPJ, stating the following:
 “Being evident that the possibility itself, foreseen in art. 266.1 LOPJ, to restrict total-
mind the access to the text of a Judgment could be problematic, as far as
to the Constitutional Judgments, thanks to the obligation of their formal publication in the Bo-
Official Latvian, provided for in both art. 164.1 CE as in art. 86.2 LOTC, and that, even, the
The possibility of omitting the identification of the parties involved in the process may result
tar, usually, much more exceptional in constitutional processes than in pro
judicial dismissals, thanks to the material obligation, derived from the arts. 164.1 CE and 99.2
LOTC, to ensure maximum dissemination of the jurisdictional resolutions of this Tax-
nal; the art. 266.1 LOPJ in conjunction with the aforementioned art. 6.4 LOPD, in any case, can serve
of reference element both in establishing the need for the decision
on the restriction of the publicity of the parties involved in the constitutional process
it is done by making an individual weighting of the constitutional interests concu-
managers in the case with which the advertising principle may conflict, as in
Regarding what are the interests that may be prevalent,
singularly the right to privacy, the rights of those who require a special
guardianship, the guarantee of anonymity, where appropriate, of victims and victims, and the
avoidance of said data being used for purposes contrary to the Laws. Throughout
In this case, special emphasis should be made that the literal wording of art. 266.1 LOPJ does not imply
a limitation of the fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees with which they can
the constitutional principle of maximum diffusion of the re-
jurisdictional solutions of the Constitutional Court, whenever any right
damental or constitutional guarantee is likely to be weighted with respect to the possibility
It is possible to make exceptions to that principle, including, of course, the fundamental right
as provided in art. 18.4 CE in the terms and with the breadth and autonomy that has been
recognized by this Court in STC 292/2000, of November 30, in its foundations
legal coughs 5 and 6 ”.
Therefore, again this doctrine redirects the controversial issue to the
interest weighting. 
The claims of the defendant, although it can be understood in an accusing tone,
they do not suggest a response outside the law by presenting the sentence on the social network
integra, treatment not legitimized according to the regulations in force in the circumstances
Article 4.2, .7 and .10 of the GDPR states: “ For the purposes of this Regulation,
understand by:
2) treatment »: any operation or set of operations performed on data
personal or personal data sets, either by automated procedures or
no, such as collection, registration, organization, structuring, conservation, adaptation or
modification, extraction, consultation, use, communication by transmission, dissemination or
any other means of enabling access, collation or interconnection, limitation,
suppression or destruction;
7) "responsible for the treatment" or "responsible": the natural or legal person,
authority, service or other body that, alone or together with others, determines the purposes and
means of treatment; Whether the law of the Union or of the Member States determines
the purposes and means of the treatment, the person responsible for the treatment or the criteria
specific for their appointment may be established by the law of the Union or of the
Member states;
10) "third party" means a natural or legal person, authority, service or body other than
interested, the person in charge of the treatment, the person in charge of the treatment and the
persons authorized to process personal data under the direct authority of the
responsible or manager ; ”
The making available through the FACEBOOK platform of the inter-
gra containing personal data of the claimant, a partner of this and the
Circumstances surrounding the case, visible to anyone, to third parties, imply
call to the CITY COUNCIL of RIBADEDEVA for a violation of article 6. 1, f) of the
GDPR for data processing through an automated means, which through the
Social network allows you to add or upload documents, such as the sentence.
It is observed that without the intermediation of the social network platform there would be no
Access and knowledge of the data contained in the sentence were possible. The Town Hall
ment is the owner of files that contain personal data among others
Swim with the development of labor relations.
However, in this case, it does not appear that the City Council had intervened in
in any way in the setting of means or ends of the treatment nor can it be said that ***
TO.1 will officially act as spokesperson or person in charge of the treatment of that one but that
*** POSITION. 1 as the holder of the judgment document, in a private medium as it was
his FACEBOOK page fully presented the sentence. Even if I did it to answer
der to the claims of the claimant, who did not expressly mention the name of
*** POSITION 1 , was displayed on the BBB website, and not on the City Council. They have
of differentiating therefore the treatments carried out by the City Council and the physical persons
cas that act within their bosom according to the instructions given, of which they still belong
denying their structure they deal with them regardless of the instructions given or in
own benefit. Although in the page of FACEBOOK in which the sentence was exposed,
indicated its condition of *** POSITION.1 , it is characteristic of *** POSITION.1 , not as such condition,
but on a private basis. In this case, the responsibility for the use of it is of said per-
sound physical as responsible for the treatment, not the City Council.
Article 28 of Law 40/2015, of 1/10, on the legal regime of the public sector is
“1 . They may only be sanctioned for acts constituting an administrative infraction.
natural and legal persons, as well as, when a Law recognizes their ability to
act, affected groups, unions and entities without legal personality and
independent or autonomous assets that are responsible for them in title
of fraud or guilt . ”
The conduct that consists in making reference, in a social network, created web page
and powered by BBB , personal data should be considered as data processing, which
In accordance with the technical and computer procedures they imply performing the operations ne-
required to make its content accessible to people who are connected to In-
ternet, through the FACEBOOK platform, these operations being carried out
The principles of the field of criminal law applicable, with certain nuances,
in the administrative penalty area, and in accordance with the proven facts, having been
more admitted by BBB that exposed the sentence in defense of attacks
The claimant's statements were not possible, it is not possible to charge the infraction to the City Council
and declare that he has committed it.
Since the facts that gave rise to the claim occur on *** DATE 1 and by
their severity, they are not prescribed, so we will proceed to initiate proceedings against
the BBB person
Therefore, in accordance with applicable law,
the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection RESOLVES:
FIRST: DECLARE, in accordance with the provisions of article 90.1 of the LPCAP
the non-existence of responsibility for the CITY COUNCIL OF RIBADEDEVA
( *** POSITION 1 ) in the infringement of article 6.1.f) of the GDPR.
( *** POSITION . 1 ).
THIRD: In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, the
This Resolution will be made public once the interested parties have been notified.
Against this resolution, which ends the administrative procedure 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, lodge an appeal for reinstatement with the Director of
the Spanish Agency for Data Protection within one month from the day
following notification of this resolution or directly contentious appeal
administrative before the Contentious-administrative Chamber of the National Court, with
in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of the fourth additional provision
of the Law 29/1998, of 13/07, regulating the Contentious-administrative Jurisdiction, in the
within two months from the day following the notification of this act, as
provided in article 46.1 of the aforementioned Law.
Finally, it is noted that according to the provisions of art. 90.3 a) of the LPACAP,
may suspend the final decision in administrative proceedings if the interested party
It expresses its intention to file a contentious-administrative appeal. If this is the
In this case, the interested party must formally communicate this fact by writing to the
Spanish Agency for Data Protection, presenting it through the Electronic Registry
of the Agency [https:// /sede-electronica-web/], or through any of the
remaining records provided in art. 16.4 of the aforementioned Law 39/2015, of 1/10. Too
must transfer to the Agency the documentation proving the effective interposition of the
Sponsored links. If the Agency was not aware of the interposition
of the contentious-administrative appeal within two months from the day following the
Notification of this resolution would terminate the precautionary suspension.
Sea Spain Martí
Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection