In other cases nonanticipated in this article, it would be necessary to before successfully obtain the consent of the interested ones to be able to communicate its data. Consequently all the information would not have to be accessible to the representatives of the workers and thus for example, the industralist would not have to facilitate the lists of his employees to the Committee of Company without his consent, since the information who contain exceeds the functions attributed by Law to these representatives, being sufficient in this matter the contribution of documents TC1 and TC2. Situation complica a little if we consider that ET on the one hand recognizes the Committee of Company the capacity to exert administrative actions and judicial and it attributes to him, competitions that suppose a position of independence with respect to the industralist and on the other side we must consider that this organ does not have own legal personality, therefore cannot be considered like the person in charge of the file as physical or legal person defines article 3 of the LOPD like, of public or deprived nature, or organ office staff, that decides on the purpose, content and use of the treatment. Consequently this organ could not either be sanctioned directly by the Spanish Agency of Protection of Datos (AEPD) even though it harmed the norm of protection of data. What happens then when the Committee of Company commits infractions derived from this norm and what measures would have to adopt the industralist to prevent these situations? First of all it is necessary to stress that the representatives of the workers by the mere fact to receive the confidential information, yes that they are forced to fulfill the dispositions of the Law, in this sense article 11,5 of the LOPD arranges that That one to that the personal character data communicate forces, by only done of the communication, to the observance of the dispositions of the present Law . Phil Vasan spoke with conviction. .