Search results

The Spanish DPA dismissed a complaint about an unauthorised publication of nude photos of a minor on a pornographic website due to the lack of evidence

Spanish DPA (AEPD) fined an accommodation services company €6000 for signing a contract on behalf of the claimant without their consent. An action for breach

although in its historical file, there was an informed dischargeby Evo Finance on January 13, 2019, for an unpaid amount of € 738.76,which was terminated

year is a sufficient storage period. Statement received from the registrar An explanation has been requested from the registrar on May 27, 2020. The registrar

assignment of points in an evaluation of the organizational behavior of directors and executive personnel of an Italian municipality may cause an “unjustified and

in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 GDPR. The Spanish DPA (AEPD) launched an investigation on Orange's marketing practices after several complainants lodged

Administrative Courts. For example, Administrative Courts are competent to deal with an action for misuse of powers against a national decree which allows uninterrupted

cookies and tracers, an adaptation period of six months during which the Commission announced that the continuation of navigation as an expression of consent

the activities of his office, which can be qualified as an SME. Said breaches only concern an employee in a specific, punctual context, marked by loss

considerations: “Indeed, current criminal law sets an age below which per- sona is unimputable (14 years old), and establishes an age range from 14 and under 18 years

had an impact on the privacy consents reported in the customer data sheets. In this regard, during the inspections, it was found that there was an inconsistency

Such an appeal can be lodged by means of an inter partes petition must contain information listed in Article 1034ter of the Judicial Code16. It an objection

fined electronics and appliance company EUR 3,000 because it kept contacting an individual for commercial purposes, although the individual had objected to

of €3000 on GTL for a breach of art. 12 and 15 of the GDPR in relation to an access request from a former employer. In particular, the Garante specified

Garante held the following: The use of the mandatory tick of the box constituted an infringement of the fairness, lawfulness and transparency principle under

of appeal within 30 days of notification An appeal addressed to the Metropolitan Court may be challenged in an administrative lawsuit within one day. THE

failing to properly respond to an access request, in violation of Articles 15(3) and 33 GDPR. The data subject made an access request to the controller

(CTR) and the General Data Protection regulation (GDPR) also does not provide an answer on that question. According to the Information Commissioner, the sponsor

any of the risks referred to in that article. On 5 December 2019, WM brought an action before the tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxembourg District

Wiesbaden held a data subject could not make a claim for injunctive relief for an alleged violation of his data subject rights because the GDPR does not allow