Search results

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

protection within the meaning of Article 45 of the GDPR and without appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of the GDPR. Furthermore, the plaintiff

regarding Articles 5(1)(b) GDPR and 5(1)(e) GDPR and held that national courts had to determine, using the factors of Article 6(4) GDPR, whether further processing

Vodafone S.p.A in violation of the following GDPR provisions: Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) and Article 25(1): for failing to implement control systems

under Article 15 GDPR." The DPA rejected the request for review. Genealogical research on a family surname did not fall within the scope of Article 15 GDPR

fairness of processing (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR), data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR), and data protection by default (Article 25(2) GDPR). The DPA suggested

force: "According to Article 16 sentence 1 GDPR, every data subject has the right to request the controller (see Article 4(7) GDPR) to correct incorrect

this from happening, in violation with Article 24(1), Article 24(2), and Article 25(1) GDPR. According to Article 24(4) of the Finish Data Protection Act,

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR; 2. Did not provide the complainant with enough information prior to the processing, in violation of Article 13 GDPR; 3. Processed

council in Greece to cease their processing activities, under Article 58(2) GDPR and Article 15(8) of Law 4624/2019, because of an unresolved data breach

GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, Article 10 GDPR, Article 30 GDPR and Article 34 GDPR, as well as the provision of the PDPA governing processing of personal data