Search results

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (in hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

conformity with articles 64.2.f) and 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure Common Administrative of Public Administrations (LPACAP), by not carrying

63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, 2011, on Common Administrative Procedure for Public Administrations (hereinafter referred to as LPACAP), for the

in the article64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure ofPublic Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP).In accordance

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

in accordance with the provisions of the LOPDPGDD, and in addition to the LPACAP, in processing of sanctioning procedures. SECOND: As proven facts of the

no allegation has been received from the claimed party. Article 64.2.f) of the LPACAP - provision of which the claimed party was informed in the agreement

Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), was collected on 02/14/2022 as stated in the acknowledgment of receipt

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (in hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

provisions of article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations, which in its Section f) establishes that

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

indicated in the Article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public Administrations, which in its section f) establishes that

recognizes each supervisory authority, and as established in Articles 47, 64.2 and 68.1 of the Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, on the Protection of

with articles 64.2.f) and 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure Common Administrative Law of Public Administrations (LPACAP), by not carrying

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, 2011, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter referred to as LPACAP), for

Articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

proceedings against the respondent, with in accordance with Articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on the Common Administrative Procedure for Public

provisions of article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations, which in its section f) establishes that

against the claimed party, pursuant to the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of the LPACAP, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified