-That this reason refers to your specific personal situation. -That the alleged reason justifies the right of opposition requested. In the request that the individual performs is omitted this reason, furthermore does not reference to what specific data refers to the exercise of rights holder, says the Agency, and is therefore dismissed the application for protection of rights. It takes longer, that is called to throw the ball into the roof of another. As regards the reference to specific data, I think the same left perfectly accredited, if in all the application not referenced other data, nothing more than the identification, name and surname, is presumably that the data relate to these.
But there may still be doubts about those, the same Royal Decree cited in its article 25.3 indicates that in the event that the application does not meet the requirements specified in the first section, responsible for the file should request the rectification thereof. And it seems to be that responsible did not make any mention in this sense, then he understood that the request was well made and did not need any additional data. As regards the accreditation of a plea, if the actual Decree says something will be. But it seems obvious that this reason, implicitly refers to not want that your data will appear in the search engines, in addition we can also deduce, by the nature of the right, that is a right against the dignity, self-image, and specific data protection, that motivated the enactment of a law specifically as the LOPD. But what is more, within these 25 sheets which previously referred, the Agency makes express reference to a resolution of the same, the relapse in the procedure of protection of rights TD/266/2.007 that indicates it should be proclaiming that any citizen who enjoys the status of public figure nor is indeed noticiable object of public relevance must resign to support their personal data moving across the network without being able to react or correct the illegitimate inclusion thereof in a system of universal communication such as the Internet. In this respect it seems deducted if the person is in fact noticiable object having to endure lifelong inclusion of this news on the Internet, when the resolution itself indicates that if your personal data are not in the public interest, for not contributing your knowledge to forge a free public opinion as basilar pillar of the democratic State, it must enjoy reactive mechanisms covered in law (such as the right of cancellation of personal data). This would add, who made missing data in this resolution, and that does not put the date of the news.
If the news was published a long time ago, the character of news lost over time, and therefore no maintenance is required of it in time. The Agency has also stated in various resolutions on the right to oblivion. And finally, I would like to point that the applicant made two alternative requests, cancellation and opposition alternately. The Royal Decree does not require accreditation of any reason for the exercise of this right, and therefore the Agency, it should have been resolved on this alternative request.
| January 8th, 2014 | Posted in General |