ICO - FS50819531: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
No edit summary
 
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 25%; margin-left: 10px; float:right;"
{{DPAdecisionBOX
! colspan="2" |ICO - FS50819531
|-
| colspan="2" style="padding: 20px; background-color:#023868;" |[[File:ICOLOGO.png|center]]
|-
|Authority:||[[ICO (UK)]]
[[Category:ICO (UK)]]
|-
|Jurisdiction:||[[Data Protection in the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category: United Kingdom]]
|-
|Relevant Law:||
[[Article 4 GDPR#1|Article 4(1) GDPR]]
[[Category:Article 4(1) GDPR]]


[[Article 5 GDPR#1a|Article 5(1)(a) GDPR]]
|Jurisdiction=United Kingdom
[[Category:Article 5(1)(a) GDPR]]
|DPA-BG-Color=background-color:#023868;
|DPAlogo=LogoUK.png
|DPA_Abbrevation=ICO (UK)
|DPA_With_Country=ICO (UK)


[[Article 6 GDPR#1f|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]]
|Case_Number_Name=FS50819531
[[Category:Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]]
|ECLI=


[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/3 Section 3(2) DPA]
|Original_Source_Name_1=ICO
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2019/2616170/fs50819531.pdf
|Original_Source_Language_1=English
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=EN
|Original_Source_Name_2=
|Original_Source_Link_2=
|Original_Source_Language_2=
|Original_Source_Language__Code_2=
 
|Type=Complaint
|Outcome=Rejected
|Date_Started=
|Date_Decided=28.10.2019
|Date_Published=
|Year=2019
|Fine=None
|Currency=
 
|GDPR_Article_1=Article 4(1) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 4 GDPR#1
|GDPR_Article_2=Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 5 GDPR#1a
|GDPR_Article_3=Article 6(1)(f) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_3=Article 6 GDPR#1f
 
|EU_Law_Name_1=
|EU_Law_Link_1=
|EU_Law_Name_2=
|EU_Law_Link_2=
 
|National_Law_Name_1=Section 3(2) DPA
|National_Law_Link_1=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/3 Section 3(2) DPA
|National_Law_Name_2=Section 40(2) FOIA
|National_Law_Link_2=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents 40(2) FOIA
 
|Party_Name_1=Pendle Borough Council
|Party_Link_1=https://www.pendle.gov.uk/
|Party_Name_2=Anonymous
|Party_Link_2=
|Party_Name_3=
|Party_Link_3=
|Party_Name_4=
|Party_Link_4=
 
|Appeal_To_Body=
|Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_To_Status=
|Appeal_To_Link=
 
|Initial_Contributor=
|
}}


[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents 40(2) FOIA]
|-
|Type:||Complaint
|-
|Outcome:||Rejected
|-
|Decided:||28.10.2019
[[Category:2019]]
|-
|Published:||n/a
|-
|Fine:||none
|-
|Parties:||[https://www.pendle.gov.uk/ Pendle Borough Council] Vs. anonymous
|-
|National Case Number:||FS50819531
|-
|European Case Law Identifier:||n/a
|-
|Appeal:||n/a
|-
|Original Language:||[[Category:English]]
English
|-
|Original Source:||[https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2019/2616170/fs50819531.pdf ICO (EN)]
|}
ICO issued a decision regarding access to third party personal data.  
ICO issued a decision regarding access to third party personal data.  


Line 56: Line 71:


===Dispute===
===Dispute===
Is the information personal data? Would disclosure contravene GDPR principles ? Which are the legitimate interest at stake? Is disclosure is necessary ?  
Is the information personal data? Would disclosure contravene GDPR principles ? Which are the legitimate interest at stake? Is disclosure necessary?  


===Holding===
===Holding===
The ICO confirmed that the requested information was considered to be personal data pursuant ot Section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) and Article 4(1) GDPR. Pursuant to the FOIA and the GDPR, the ICO balanced the right to information and the protection of the personal data at issue in order to assess if the disclosure would contravene Article (1)(a) GDPR principle. It found that the access to information request did not override the third party right to privacy. The ICO found that the refusal of disclosure was justified and it was legitimate to withhold the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA by virtue of section 40(3A)(a) for transparency purposes.  
The ICO confirmed that the requested information was considered to be personal data pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) and Article 4(1) GDPR. Pursuant to the FOIA and the GDPR, the ICO balanced the right to information and the protection of the personal data at issue in order to assess if the disclosure would contravene Article (1)(a) GDPR principle. It found that the access to information request did not override the third party right to privacy. The ICO found that the refusal of disclosure was justified and it was legitimate to withhold the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA by virtue of section 40(3A)(a) for transparency purposes.  


==Comment==
==Comment==

Latest revision as of 16:21, 7 March 2022

ICO (UK) - FS50819531
LogoUK.png
Authority: ICO (UK)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Relevant Law: Article 4(1) GDPR
Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
Article 6(1)(f) GDPR
Section 3(2) DPA Section 3(2) DPA
40(2) FOIA Section 40(2) FOIA
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Rejected
Started:
Decided: 28.10.2019
Published:
Fine: None
Parties: Pendle Borough Council
Anonymous
National Case Number/Name: FS50819531
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: n/a
Original Language(s): English
Original Source: ICO (in EN)
Initial Contributor: n/a

ICO issued a decision regarding access to third party personal data.

English Summary

Facts

The complainant has requested a copy of an inspection report named kennels to the Pendle Borough Council (the Council). The Council refused as it considered it to be third party personal data under 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The complainant challenged the decision before the ICO.

Dispute

Is the information personal data? Would disclosure contravene GDPR principles ? Which are the legitimate interest at stake? Is disclosure necessary?

Holding

The ICO confirmed that the requested information was considered to be personal data pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) and Article 4(1) GDPR. Pursuant to the FOIA and the GDPR, the ICO balanced the right to information and the protection of the personal data at issue in order to assess if the disclosure would contravene Article (1)(a) GDPR principle. It found that the access to information request did not override the third party right to privacy. The ICO found that the refusal of disclosure was justified and it was legitimate to withhold the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA by virtue of section 40(3A)(a) for transparency purposes.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English official version

 to be completed..