Talk:RvS - 201905347/1/A3: Difference between revisions
From GDPRhub
m (Wimh moved page Talk:Raad van State - 201905347/1/A3 to Talk:RvS - 201905347/1/A3: fix name) |
(handled my own comment) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
@[[User:ML]] I do not fully agree with the translation on this page. In particular I don't think that data must be deleted, instead the minister must create a new decision about the deletion request. See paragraph 13 were it says any appeal to the new decision must not be made to a lower court, but directly to the Raad van State. Part of the problem was that the (last) decision of the minister was '''not''' based on Article 17(3) GDPR, but on Article 6(4) GDPR without properly explaining why that applies. (Paragraph 10.1 "De Afdeling leidt daaruit af dat artikel 17, derde lid, van de AVG als grondslag is verlaten.") --[[User:Wimh|Wimh]] ([[User talk:Wimh|talk]]) 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC) | @[[User:ML]] I do not fully agree with the translation on this page. In particular I don't think that data must be deleted, instead the minister must create a new decision about the deletion request. See paragraph 13 were it says any appeal to the new decision must not be made to a lower court, but directly to the Raad van State. Part of the problem was that the (last) decision of the minister was '''not''' based on Article 17(3) GDPR, but on Article 6(4) GDPR without properly explaining why that applies. (Paragraph 10.1 "De Afdeling leidt daaruit af dat artikel 17, derde lid, van de AVG als grondslag is verlaten.") --[[User:Wimh|Wimh]] ([[User talk:Wimh|talk]]) 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC) | ||
:I have modified the text. --[[User:Wimh|Wimh]] ([[User talk:Wimh|talk]]) 22:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:42, 10 October 2020
@User:ML I do not fully agree with the translation on this page. In particular I don't think that data must be deleted, instead the minister must create a new decision about the deletion request. See paragraph 13 were it says any appeal to the new decision must not be made to a lower court, but directly to the Raad van State. Part of the problem was that the (last) decision of the minister was not based on Article 17(3) GDPR, but on Article 6(4) GDPR without properly explaining why that applies. (Paragraph 10.1 "De Afdeling leidt daaruit af dat artikel 17, derde lid, van de AVG als grondslag is verlaten.") --Wimh (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
