Search results

refusal to take action on a data subject’s request (Article 12(4)). The first sentence of Article 20(3) GDPR clarifies that the exercise of the right to data

of such processing (see Article 5(1)(b) GDPR), the requirement to have a legitimate basis laid down by law (see Article 6(1) GDPR), the right to access and

protection regulation's article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letter a, Article 24, cf. Article 28, subsection 1, Article 35, subsection 1, as

online booking platform, for failing to comply with Article 12(3) GDPR and because Article 6(1)(f) GDPR was not a valid legal basis to publish personal data

protection within the meaning of Article 45 of the GDPR and without appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of the GDPR. Furthermore, the plaintiff

request, violating GDPR Article 12(3) and Article 15. The delay also led to the deletion of requested data, violating Article 5(1) GDPR. A complainant legally

processor, see Article 28(3)(a) GDPR. Document that all transfers of personal data to insecure third countries, are in line with the GDPR. Describe all

approved appeal of Article 5(1)(a), Article 12(1), Article 13(1) and Article 13(2). The appeal for Article 5(1)(c), Article 6(1) and Article 8 GDPR was not approved

the Article 33 GDPR. The DPA also ordered the controller to communicate the data breach to the affected data subjects pursuant to Article 34 GDPR. The

ASEP asked the HDPA for a prior consultation according to Article 36(1) and 36(3)(b) GDPR after it carried out a DPIA, which showed that the mentioned

the public interest, per Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and was also necessary for scientific research purposes under Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Thirdly, that the data

Articles 5(1)(a) GDPR and 13 GDPR. On the other hand, they disagreed with the infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR in relation to Article 9(1) GDPR with regard

that a controller is allowed to reject a request to access under Article 12(5)(b) GDPR as "excessive" if the request's sole purpose is to verify the validity

processing. In accordance with Article 36 GDPR, the Garante must decide on the adequacy of the intended processing under the GDPR. After careful examination

right to access under Article 15 GDPR because the controller was entitled to reject the request pursuant to Article 12(5)(b) GDPR. The court reasoned that

authority (cf. Article 36 (2) no. 7 lit. a DPA) for the purposes of military self-protection (cf. Article 36 (1) DPA in conjunction with Article 2 (1) no. 2

communications under Article 14 GDPR were not legally necessary, as in the present case, Article 23 GDPR restrictions were applicable. Article 23 GDPR establishes

adopt corrective measures as per Article 58(2) GDPR, and that, although there was a violation of Articles 5(1)(a) and (e) GDPR, “the circumstances referred

therefore of the opinion that no breach of Article 5.2 of the GDPR, Article 24.1 of the GDPR and Article 33 of the GDPR can be established. - As regards the

that “Recital 65 of the GDPR also includes the exception of the legal defense as provided for in article 17.3.e of the GDPR to the right to erasure",