Search results

List (advertising exclusion list). The Spanish DPA (AEPD) therefore began an investigation to clarify the facts at stake. This revealed that Vamavi Phone

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

access an official computer and whether the permission of an employee is required for the Head of Service to use any of the computers belonging to an agency

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

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

consent, the lack of an appropriate cookie banner and the extent of information provided in the Cookies Policy. The AEPD gave the controller an opportunity to

opposition to data processing was available at an initial momentcial, by means of the communication of an e-mail address to which theinterested parties

controller notified the DPA, who conducted an investigation. The DPA found out that the personal data was retrieved from an unprotected database backup BACPAC

statement of consent or by taking an explicit consent. Article 6 of the General Data Protection Regulation contains an exhaustive list of situations in

also appears, such as his name and address. work email. The complainant sent an email on January 22, 2021 to members of the staff meeting in which he requested

sending telematic notifications for an incident in the application database, while that of 10/31/2019 consisted of an incorrect handling of exceptions in

the controller was informed of the complaint - the controller did not have an appropriate legal basis for the direct marketing and legitimate interests

claimed party is considered responsible for an infringementtypified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD , in an initial assessment, they are considered concurrentthe

defendant was not at fault with regard to an alleged breach of the GDPR. Finally, there is no causality of an alleged breach of the GDPR for the alleged

out in the public interest under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR does not constitute an appropriate and adequate legal basis for all the personal data processed.

of some employees of an external commercial partner (the company Penta Finanziamenti Italia Srl, hereinafter "Penta") through an application called Speedy

have been accredited the following: PROVEN FACTS FIRST: The 08/07/2020 has an entry in the AEPD police report bulletin FORAL DE NAVARRA (hereinafter, the