Search results

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of 1 October, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

accordance with Articles 64.2.f) and 85 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on Procedure Common Administration of Public Administration (LPACAP), as it does not allegations

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

in articleass 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Administrative Procedure Co-of the Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP).In accordance

in the Article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). In accordance

in the article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). In accordance

established in article64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure ofthe Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP).In accordance

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (in hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

in the article64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure ofPublic Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP).In accordance

and the lack of cooperation with the Spanish Data Protection Agency (83 (2) (f) GDPR). Therefore, in view of the aggravating factors applied to the case,

Determining the amount of the penalty is an obligation imposed by article 64.2 of the LPACAP and then point out that “not only are the requirements mentioned,

in the Article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). In accordance

Articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

accordance with Articles 64.2.f) and 85 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on Procedure Common Administration of Public Administration (LPACAP), as it does not allegations

the claimed party, in accordance with the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of LPACAP, for the alleged violation of the article 5.1.c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

indicated in Article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations, which in its section f) establishes

Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 10/18 Article 64.2.f) of the LPACAP -provision of which COOLTRA was informed in the agreement to open

procedure to the claimed, withpursuant to the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of the LPACAP, for the alleged infringementof Article 58.1 of the RGPD, typified

in article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). In accordance