Search results

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

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

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

established in article64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure ofthe 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

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (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

alleged infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Does the action of the defendant constitute a violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Considering the evidence available

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

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

conformity with articles 64.2.f) and 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure Common Administrative of Public Administrations (LPACAP), by not carrying

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

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

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

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

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

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

contrary to what the Proposal for a Resol- tion, neither Article 64 nor Article 85 of the LPACAP establishes that in the At the beginning, the specific amount

to the agreement to initiate the sanctioning file, under Article 64.2.f) of the LPACAP, and given that the agreement to initiate the proceedings contained