Search results

violation of Article 5, Article 6, and Article 25 GDPR. It ordered the controller to comply with the data subject's erasure request pursuant to Article 17(1)(d)

withdrawal of consent under Article 7(3) GDPR. The Authority also considers the existence of a deletion request under Article 17 GDPR. The AEPD concludes that

the alleged violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and article 32 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 and 83.4 of the GDPR. The initiation agreement

the obligations relating to the right to erase data (Articles 12.3 and 4 and Article 17 of the RGPD) and contained findings going further than the subject

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notification of the aforementioned start-up

obligation of Article 32 GDPR? - Does the fact that this health data is not encrypted constitute a breach of the security obligation under Article 32 GDPR? - Does

and the free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and

under Article 15 GDPR, in a timely manner as well as in clear and transparent form. Second, the DPA looked at the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR

applicability of Article 2 (2) point d) GDPR, which reads as follows:“2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:(…)(d) by the competent

the following article. Once this period has expired, the interested party may consider his or her claim to be accepted. THIRD: Article 17 of the RGPD provides

concerned an alleged violation of the applicant's right of erasure (Article 17 GDPR). However, the conflicting information had been anonymized by the webmaster

not be employee consent [Article 6(1)(a)], due to the nature of the employer-employee relationship.' 3. Rationale 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 According to Articles

consent of the 10 complainant (article 6.1 a) of the GDPR combined with article 7 of the GDPR), (2) article 6.1 c) of the GDPR in that the publication results

all" button be considered a breach of GDPR Article 4(11) and Article 7, read in conjunction with GDPR Article 5(3) -Privacy while the data controller gives

points b) and d) and article 83, paragraph 4, al. a), all documented regulation.-In addition, under the terms of article 83, paragraph 3 of the GDPR, the fine

on legitimate interests according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and that Ziggo had to comply with Article 6(4)(d) GDPR. The Court found that DFW had a legitimate

for fraud prevention under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Did the company’s policy breach Article 6 or any other articles of the GDPR? The Garante held that the

indicated in point 3.3 of this decision. 4.3. Safety measures applied to the storage of traffic data. The conduct ascertained in point 3.4 of this decision

controller had violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 17(1) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

made by D. AAA against GOOGLESPAIN, SL.SECOND : NOTIFY this resolution to D. AAA and GOOGLE SPAIN, SL.In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of