Judgments are not publicly available sources
Judgments are public. So ... in my blog I mention the name of a Judge, if I am discussing one of the sentence handed down?
Court decisions are public, but are not considered publicly available sources, under the present wording of Article 3 of Law 15/1999 and 7 of the Rules of Development. Therefore not available (or forthcoming) any personal data collected on them.
Case Study:
On 15 July I wrote an article entitled New posit: Judges for New Technologies, regarding the sentence that condemns Julio Alonso to pay compensation to the SGAE for not censoring comments that his readers had left on her blog.
If you look, instead of putting the name of the judges, they replaced it by a XXXXXXX. Why?
In the post, mentioned and linked the ruling Conviction of the regular trial 743/07 and other sentence than that of 26 Feb. 2007 in the Provincial Court of Madrid. Both appointments are contained in the image illustrating this post, boxed in green, preceded by what might have been the name of the Magistrate Judge of each (boxed in red). Following these links you can easily find out who the speakers in each of the trials. Therefore, despite the name not being written, the statement could be interpreted as indirect personal data under Article 5.f the Regulations implementing Law 15/99, as it can identify a person without more effort than that involved in making a click:
f) Personal data: any numerical, alphabetical, graphic, photographic, acoustic or otherwise concerning an identified or identifiable natural person.
Because if I was producing occasional existential doubt, I raised a query to the Spanish Agency of Data Protection. These were their responses:
- A ruling is not a publicly accessible source.
- No published data are available or who are in a sentence.
- In a newspaper article about a particular Case, you can not name the judge or any of the parties involved. However, we may, in some cases, it may be argued the Right to Information for current news.
- Put a link to where is the name of the Magistrate Judge is a good practice.
So now I could say that "a judge" has issued a ruling could say what sentence is, link it, mostrárosla or even darosla and note the name of the judge, but I can not write in my blog!
Debate: Does the Data Protection law than the principle of publicity of Sentences?
In my opinion, certain individuals and collective actors at trial, on whom the Data Protection law must always prevail, for example, minors, victims of sexual abuse, people who have been abused ...
As lawyers and prosecutors believe they should always be protected by the Data Protection Law, despite the principle of publicity.
In contrast, in the case of judges and magistrates do not see why or why their names should be hidden. Such persons or public institutions administer justice on behalf of the People. Many are even determine or establish legal criteria for interpreting the law. Their names appear for reference in case law databases, mementos, law books, yearbooks ... Does it make sense to maintain this limit on the publication of their names in media? In my opinion, does not.
But, although I feel that the sentences should be included in the list of sources available to the public (at least for information purposes and in reference to Magistardos and judges), the reality is that they are not, and must act accordingly.
Here I leave with Article 7 of ROYAL DECREE 1720/2007 of 21 December, which approves the Regulation implementing Law 15/1999 of 13 December on the protection of personal data, so that what sources you consult are currently considered as accessible to the public:
Article 7. Publicly available sources.
1. For the purposes of Article 3, paragraph j) of Act 15/1999, it is understood that only have the character of publicly available sources:
a) The census promotional regulated under the provisions of Law 15/1999 of 13 December.
b) Directories of electronic communications services, as provided by specific regulations.
c) The lists of persons belonging to professional groups that contain only the data of name, title, profession, activity, academic degree, professional management and indication of their group. The business address data may include full postal address, phone number, fax number and email address. In the case of professional associations can be reported as group membership data as number of collegiate, date of incorporation and professional situation.
d) official bulletins.
e) media.
2. In any case, that the cases listed in the previous section can be considered publicly available sources, it is necessary that your query can be performed by anyone not hindered by a rule limiting, or without further requirement that, where appropriate, the payment of remuneration.
Note: In case of positive again: Judges for New Technologies, could have submitted the information quality principle and advertising, among others. But I wanted to leave it to lead to this explanation, sure, many will open their eyes about how irrational can become the current rules of data protection.
Well it's funny because there are sentences in which the AGPD make a ruling on the notice board of a union, which provides names of complainants, is not considered by the AGPD punishable. Interestingly considered in that case that the Law on Freedom of Association prevails over that of the people reflected in the sentence.
However, AGPD itself when it makes public its decisions, eliminating references to people, and for a long time.
Does not this sound strange?
According to that case is admissible. I think the AGPD uses a double standard and lately it is beginning to see the duster.
From my point of view is taking the first firm signs of politicization.
Someone is looking for prize AGPD?
Good initiative.
Lucky
The first to breach the legislation itself is the documentation center, all statements published in both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court containing full names of Magistrates, Judges, Lawyers, Attorneys, etc. parts. Of what use is the Data Protection Act according to the teorisa exposed?