Search results

data under Article 4(1) GDPR, especially because they allow to single out a data subject within the meaning of recital 26 of the GDPR. It is sufficient that

to in the first sentence of recital 63 GDPR. Neither the wording of Article 12(5) GDPR nor that of Article 15(1) and (3) GDPR condition the provision (to

NOYB, local case number 9782890. Page 22 of 23The Swedish Privacy Agency Diary number: DI-2020-11373 23(23) Date: 2023-06-30 4 Appeal reference 4.1 How

same applies to the right to erasure under Article 17 of the GDPR. Recital 63 of the GDPR also supports this view. It shows that the legislator wants to

proportionality (Article 8(1) CFR, Article 9A Greek Constitution, Recital 64 GDPR), underlined that the GDPR totally respects all fundamental rights and freedoms included

election by a parliamentary assembly is explicitly envisaged by the GDPR in Recital 121. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The

of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 56 GDPR. Following the

Article 46 GDPR. In 2020, noyb lodged a complaint with the Austrian DPA alleging that the controller breached the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint

of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 56 GDPR. Following the

to Article 83 GDPR in conjunction with Article 4 No. 7 and 8 GDPR, fines for violations of the GDPR pursuant to Article 83(4) to (6) GDPR are not only to

proportionality of the measure under Article 6(4) GDPR, in accordance with the objectives referred to in Article 23(1) GDPR. It recalled that these objectives include

Fashion ID Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 80 GDPR Article 1 Directive 95/46 Article 1(1) Directive 2009/22/EC Article 10 Directive

regarding Articles 5(1)(b) GDPR and 5(1)(e) GDPR and held that national courts had to determine, using the factors of Article 6(4) GDPR, whether further processing

subject pursuant to Article 9 (2) (a) of the GDPR ΕΙΣ/7564/05.11.2019 and the invocation of recital 47 of the GDPR 2016/679, inter alia, informed the Authority

point (g) of GDPR and 13 par. 1 point g. 4624/2019, and to exercise respectively the powers conferred on it by the provisions of Articles 58 GDPR and 15 Law

laid down in the GDPR, so that the general conditions for claims were decisive, unless the GDPR contained special rules; even under the GDPR, only non-material

15(1)(h) of the GDPR, the right of data subjects to object under Article 21(1)(1)(2) of the GDPR and - in essence - in Article 22 of the GDPR as a general

and b) GDPR. With its reply of August 23, 2019, the defendant obviously did not fulfill the further claim according to letters c) to g). Recital 53 The

complaint in accordance with Article 78, second paragraph, of the GDPR and recital 141 of the GDPR. Has the defendant observed the reasonable period in handling

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 this