Search results

monitor the functioning of decisions adopted on the basis of Article 25(6) or Article 26(4) of Directive 95/46/EC. In its adequacy decisions, the Commission

registered letter in violation of article 15 (1) cond. 12 par. 2, 3 and 4 GDPR and c) 30,000 euros for violation of Article 25 (1) GDPR because it did not in practice

compatible by virtue of a legal provision (see Article 6.4. of the RGPD). Based on the criteria in section 6.4 of the EDR: there is no link between the two

personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. Their processing would require the data subjects' explicit consent under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and § 151(4) GewO, ordered

administrative fine for the infringement of Article 6(1) or Article 6(1)(b) GDPR meet the requirements of Article 4(24) GDPR. 504. The EDPB decides that the relevant

Therefore, given that Article 6(1), Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(1)(c), and Article 14 GDPR were infringed in connection to Article 5(1)(b), the

defendant within the meaning of Article 4 of the GDPR. The defendant is therefore a controller within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR. b. 44 The Senate is convinced

the inspected with section 4 of chapter 4 of the GDPR. 3. […] the inspectorate [is active in the field of transport] […]. 4. The controlled has approximately

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

within the meaning of Article 4 no. 2 of the GDPR and the term "transfer" within the meaning of Article 44 et seq. of the GDPR. GDPR had to be differentiated

the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

assessment framework 4.4. The right of access previously laid down in Article 12 of the Privacy Directive 95/46 has now been included in Article 15 of the AVG

according to Article 9(2)(a) GDPR. On the basis of the information gathered, the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 9 GDPR. As a result

website controller qualifies as controller (Article 4(7) GDPR) and Google LLC as processor (Article 4(8) GDPR) for data processing in connection with Google

according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, is data personnel and their protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

para. 1 of the GDPR. To 2): c) Article 50b (2) DSG 2000 (for the period prior to 25 May 2018) (d) Article 13(3) DSG (for the period from 25 May 2018) To

the GDPR. In light of this, the Court agreed with the DPA that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article

of data protection required under Article 25 GDPR, in particular in view of the obligation arising from Article 25 GDPR to implement appropriate technical

(f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and

violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the