For the Ministry of Justice, in addition to Minister

nijhumnishita03

Pilar Llop, the Secretary of State for Justice, Antonio Julián Rodríguez, attended; the Undersecretary of Justice, Ana María Sánchez Hernández; and the general secretary for Innovation and Quality of the Public Justice Service, Manuel Olmedo.Measures that were not adopted in this case.” That is to say, at the time these events occurred, there were technical measures related to the registration process that would have prevented the leakage of personal data that occurred. This implies that the technical measures adopted did not comply with the security conditions in the required terms. Finally, the Court points out that the fact that it was the negligent action of an employee that caused the security breach does not exempt the company from responsibility as the company responsible for the correct use of the security measures that should have guaranteed the proper use of the designed data recording system.

The ruling explains that the appellant was not convicted for his ideas , opinions or statements, but for failure to comply with requirements derived from inappropriate use of public buildings, which must be Phone Number Data  at the service of the general interests, not of a more or less group. less specific or numerous of people, to the exclusion of the rest. The display of partisan symbols, as identifiable with certain political options, violated the duty of neutrality and objectivity that, at all times, must be respected by public powers, but especially during the electoral period, as a guarantee of the cleanliness of the process. democratic, and equality in elections. The sentence has the dissenting votes of judges Juan Antonio Xiol and Ramón Sáez .



Confirmation of the sanction In the case examined, the High Court confirms the sanction to the company because “the program used to collect customer data did not contain any security measure that would allow checking whether the email address entered was real or fictitious and if really belonged to the person whose data was being processed and gave consent for it. The state of the art at the time these events occurred made it possible to establish measures aimed at verifying the veracity of the email address, making the continuation of the process conditional on the user receiving the contract at the address provided and only from there providing services. the necessary consent for its collection and processing. Measures that were not adopted in this case.”