Search results

violated Articles 12(3), (4), 13(2)(b), 30(1)(d) and (g) of the GDPR and issued a warning by virtue of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR. Due to the anonimisation

the alert on the SIS system under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. The reason for the data subject invoking the GDPR is that Article 53(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1861

infringement of Article 32 GDPR. Therefore, the Spanish DPA issued a warning sanction for each violation of Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR. AEPD highlighted

point at which it was found to be unlawful. 3.3 More specifically, in Kyriakidis n. Republic (2013) 3 A.A.D. 629 it was mentioned in this regard: "... we

violates Article 32 GDPR. Retaining personal data of an applicant for a lease after another applicant has been selected also violates Article 5(1)(e) GDPR

with the principles of article 5 par. 1 GDPR. It is no coincidence that the GDPR includes accountability (see Article 5 para. 2 GDPR) in the regulation of

not be based on Article 45. Article 46.1 provides, among other things, that in the absence of a decision in accordance with Article 45.3 a personal data

violated Article 5(1)(e) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant

and Article of 11Law No. 3471/2006, in accordance with Article 13(58i2) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 83(1)(a) of the GDPR. 5 of the GDPR, and

breaching Article 12(3) GDPR, since it failed to notify the data subject that her erasure request was satisfied, as well as Article 24(1) GDPR, given that

been deleted by the employer upon request pursuant to Article 16, Article 17 and Article 5(1)(d) GDPR (inaccuracy of personal data). Therefore, the employer

personal data a breach of Article 5(1)(d)? Can this failure to update data result in a refusal to comply with Article 17 GDPR? The AEPD held that IBERDROLA

personal data under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, and ordered the controller to pay the data subject €579.17 in damages under Article 82(1) GDPR. Share your comments

assistance under Article 2.3 of the Youth Act and that deletion would violate the Archives Act (Archiefwet) and Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. The mother objected

decision of the Minister is no longer based on Article 17(3) GDPR. Instead the decision is based on Article 6(4) GDPR. However the Minister did not explain well

transparency, cf. Article 5(1)(a), and accuracy, cf. Article (5)(1)(d), they hadn't recorded the processing activity as required in Article 30, hadn't conducted

the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.4 of the RGPD and Article 83.5 of the RGPD. The initiation

that the article’s publication was in violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, when read in line with Article 85 GDPR. Article 5(1)(c) outlines

regard to article 83.2 (k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

violation of Article 6 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, and classified as very serious for the purposes of prescription in article 72.1.b)