Search results

Court asserted that the concept of establishment effectively "extends to any real and effective activity — even a minimal one — exercised through stable

that the AG correctly interpreted the provision to protect the user from any privacy interference, irrespective of whether that interference concerns personal

answered only by the Data Controller. The same criterion should be answered by any party to whom the data are asked to be disclosed. Secondly, the CJEU continued

treatment; CONSIDERING that, in the absence of any mechanism for verifying the age of the users, as well as, in any case, of the complex of violations detected

information relating to Mr. Breyer's access including his IP address and any information that could result in revealing his identity. The court further

by A to any third party except as necessary to maintain or provide the Services or to comply with any law or valid and enforceable order of any governmental

does not take any position on the merit of any substantial issues raised therein. The EDPB reiterates that its current decision is without any prejudice to

appointment) of the data subject to any office, or the provision (or prospective provision) by the data subject of any service. Article 27 of Part 6 of Schedule

activities, a data protection impact assessment, if any, a randomly anonymised customer profile, a record of any consent obtained and a model of a "declaration

_JCourt of Appeal Brussels - 2019/AR/1600-p. 6 to create a loyalty card in any other way was rejected. As a result, the person concerned was refused a loyalty

additional safeguards to prevent any risks in the processing. Additionally, the AEPD argues that there could not have been any reasonable expectation of the

of the PDPA, upon any infringement of the rights pursuant to the GDPR and pursuant to this Act, the data subject may appeal against any actions or acts of

These rules have not yet been adopted. Article 113 of the Code prohibits any investigation or processing of data or pre-selection of workers, even with

defendant believes that any third country transfer is justified due to the use of standard data protection clauses and in any case due to the consent given

erasure under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, as the data processing was not lawful. In any case, the requirements of Article 6 GDPR were no longer met 6 months after

consult data freely accessible or made accessible and that they do not, under any circumstances, make it possible to maintain in an automated data processing

decision with complaints. The DPA considered both complaints, but did not find any grounds to change their decision. Consequently, the case was submitted to

with personal data of citizens of Municipality X were easily accessible by any user through the "..." website, changing the last five-digit number that appears

identifiable should consider taken to any means that can reasonably be used either by the personal data controller or by any other person to identify the person”

database, the controller kept the personal data of data subjects without any purpose for almost one and a half years. The DPA ordered the controller to