Search results

The Croatian DPA (AZOP) imposed a fine of approximately €120,000 against an energy company for a violation of Article 15(3) GDPR by failing to provide

and Article 13 GDPR. On 14 February 2019, the Luxembourg DPA decided to open an investigation into the companies of Group A and particularly into Company

this case, the Cypriot DPA reviewed one of its previous decisions, following an order by the Administrative Court. In September and October 2018, four articles

receive their contract, the controller sent an email containing contract of another customer as well as an audio recording of that customer's data. The

Article 123 of the LPACAP, the interested parties may lodge, on an optional basis, an appeal for a reversal to the Director of the Spanish Data Protection

Seguridad del Estado) in November 2019. In addition, the system does not have an informational poster indicating the responsible person for data processing

Assembly meeting. The notification document included the claimant's name and an outstanding debt of €286,81 in his name. The defendant claimed that notifying

key card as an employee or as a private person. The error only affected people with NemID key cards who logged in as an employee, which is an unknown proportion

("Gedragscode Verwerking Persoonsgegevens Financiële Instellingen"); 2) IVR is an internal register of ING, appellant failed to demonstrate that the record

welfare service's handling of confidential personal data in an e-mail on 7 December 2021. In an email to A on 23 February 2022, the Norwegian Data Protection

SL despite being on the "Robinson List". Raise Marketing has entered into an agency contract for teleshopping with Factor Energía SA. In this contract

data of 1300 data subjects to incorrect email addresses. In the context of an online event that it was organising, the data controller erroneously sent

"Any person taken care of by a health professional, an establishment or service, a professional or an organization contributing to prevention or treatment

due to the voluntary and early payment of €3000. The respondent company sent an e-mail to the claimant requesting the return of a credit. To facilitate payment

including photo inserts, GZ. PAD/[...]/VStV, an official company register query on FN [...] dated 28.08.2018, an official online search at the Internet address:

Adherence to an approved code of conduct pursuant to article 40 or to a certification mechanism approved under article 42 may serve as an element to demonstrate

Regulation, the Sanctions Board has assessed the imposition of an administrative fine as an effective, proportionate and warning sanction based on Article

the monitoring activity for which an accreditation was granted , in fact cannot be exercised. Likewise, in this case, an effective interaction of the respective

factors (Article 83 (2) GDPR) to determine the level of the sanction: It is an intentional negligent action (art. 83 (2) (b) GDPR). The AEPD became aware

of this body may be considered an administrative offence in accordance with the provisions of the RGPD, classified as an infringement in its Article 83