Urenco Group and Subsidiaries GDPR and Information Rights Compliance.

Oliver Harris made this access to documents request to Data Protection Officer

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Waiting for an internal review by Data Protection Officer of their handling of this request.

Dear Data Protection Officer,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:
Urenco Group and subsidiaries is owned by the German, Dutch and UK governments in equal shares.

1. As a state owned entity with designated powers is Urenco subject to Freedom of Information Requests based on Fish Legal vs ICO and others ?
2. As a state owned entity is with 1500 employees is Urenco legally obliged to have an in-house Data Protection Officer (DPO) to hand ?

Given the vast volume of, sensitivity of and global security implications of corrupt or corrupted data, insecure data and the overt and covert use of CCTV cameras and stored data within the company.

3. What is the maximum possible fine that can be applied to a structured joint enterprise abuse/corruption of personal and corporate data, with a Company annual Global Turnover of 1,958,000,000 euro ? (Max possible fine based on this gross figure).

Yours faithfully,

David Goliath

Dear Data Protection Officer,

Please request a legal response on my behalf.

Because Unenco is owned one third by the UK, German and Dutch Governments and is intergal to the production of enriched Uranium fuel for Nuclear Reactor/Electricit Power Stations it therefore has the status of a "Public Utility Company" and is an organization that maintains the critical infrastructure for a public service and is subject to numerous forms of public control and regulation this company should also be subject to the rigours of public, Parliamentary, financial, environmental and regulatory compliance scrutiny, it should therefore be correctly categorized as "public body" for purposes of information access accountability by the public and all the other stakeholders named above.

Can the DPO confirm that Urenco is subject to the rigours of Freedom of Information Compliance, for the reasons stated above and in relation to the original submission ?

Kind Regards

Mr Parr

Yours faithfully,

Oliver Harris