Search results

controller €400,000 pursuant of Article 83(4)(a) GDPR for the failure to conduct a DPIA in violation with Articles 35(1), 35(2), and 35(3)(b). The DPA stated that

entitled to 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

requirement for a DPIA under Article 35 GDPR: The Belgian DPA was satisfied that there was no infringement of Article 35 GDPR, and subsequently no obligation

that a controller is allowed to reject a request to access under Article 12(5)(b) GDPR as "excessive" if the request's sole purpose is to verify the validity

processed on the basis of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR does not have the rights to erasure and objection contained in Article 17 and Article 21 GDPR respectively. This

violated Article 30(1) GDPR, as it should have kept more detailed records of processing activities. Data protection impact assessment - Article 35 GDPR The

information in accordance with Article 13 GDPR. In addition, the HDPA found that the Ministry violated the obligation of Article 35(9) GDPR in relation to the expression

under Article 5 (1)(e)GDPR, the duty to provide information under Article 13 GDPR, and the obligation to carry out a DPIA under Article 35(3)(b) GDPR. The

the documents or files containing their personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR and Article 12 of the ePrivacy Directive. However, there is a right to a

the basis of § 35 (1) 9) of the PSA, but in refusing to comply with a request for information, § 35 (1) 5 ) and Point 10 of because § 35 section 1 subsection

with Article 5 (1) (a) and Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR. Thus, the controller failed to comply with the accountability principle under Article 5 (2) GDPR. Second

the lack of security routines, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) cf. Article 5 GDPR, Article 35 and Article 24(1), respectively. Teachers at two junior high

basis as provided in Article 6.1. GDPR. The Disputes Chamber will determine that the defendants rightly invoke Article 6.1. f) GDPR 7, since the verdict

time tracking system, due to a lack of compatibility with Article 7(4) and Article 35(9) of GDPR. KEO PLC decided to upgrade its ERP system, whose upgrade

assessment against the GDPR A. Identification of the controllers involved (Article 4.7 GDPR) 24. In accordance with Article 4.7 GDPR, it must be the controller

should have applied Article 35 GDPR. In light of the above, the Italian DPA used its corrective powers under Article 58(2)(c) and 83 GDPR and fined the controller

asked whether the joint control of data in accordance with Article 4(7) and Article 26(1) GDPR must be interpreted 'exclusively' as involving deliberately

(possible) fraud. This resulted in a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 8 of the Dutch Personal Data Protection

explanatory statement of the law, Article 10 defines the Authority’s competence in compliance with Article 55 GDPR.Article 55 GDPR provides for a restriction

a violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Generally, a controller