Search results

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

Protection Act 2019 sets exceptions in Article 9(1) GDPR, Article 15 GDPR, Article 16 GDPR, Article 18 GDPR and Article 21 GDPR for scientific or historical research

on final judgments did not comply with Article 25(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for

on final judgments did not comply with Article 25(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for

particular, § 25 TTDSG defines privacy protections for terminal equipment and is to be understood as an implementation of Article 5(3) ePD. § 25(1) TTDSG mandates

ends and means of such activity, by virtue of article 4.7 of the GDPR. Article 4 section 12 of the GDPR broadly defines “violations of security of personal

violated Article 6 and Article 32 GDPR. The DPA seems to consider the authentication procedure itself as "processing" and therefore Article 32 GDPR applies

Pursuant to Article 83 GDPR in conjunction with Article 4 No. 7 and 8 GDPR, fines for violations of the GDPR pursuant to Article 83(4) to (6) GDPR are not

they are processed (article 5.1 e) of the GDPR). 8.1.4. As for breaches of Articles 5.2. and 24 of the GDPR 88. Article 24.1 of the GDPR which covers Chapter

lawfulness, the Litigation Chamber concludes that Article 5.1.a. of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 6 of the GDPR have not been complied with with regard to

the data subject's consent in Article 4(11), and the basic principle of legality, reasonableness and transparency in Article 5(1)(a). Furthermore, Datatilsynet