Search results

postponement did not comply with Article 34 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, therefore a With regard to Article 34 (4), Client 1 called on the parties

ordinary courts (Article 34 GG, Article 40(2) VwGO). Moreover, the Court considered the reference to Article 79(2) GDPR from Article 82(6) GDPR, and the fact

office in G. Article. 5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 33 paragraph. 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 Regulation

according to Article 34 of the GDPR, given that he had informed the Bank about the incident, nor to the Authority, according to Article 33 of the GDPR, because

reprimand to Chief Constable West Midlands Police (WMP), for violating Articles 34(3), 38(1)(3), 40 and 57(1)(2) of the UK Data Protection Act (DPA). ICO also

Regulation) Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 5, Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph f, Article 17(1)(a), (c) and (d), Article 17(3)(a), Article 21(1) Judgments

of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 56 GDPR. Following the

thus failed to comply with Article 33 (3) of the GDPR. The DPA assessed that the Zoo did not comply with Article 34(1) of the GDPR by failing to carry out

data breach (Article 32 GDPR). Does the plaintiff have a right to compensation according to Article 82(1) GDPR and does Article 82(3) GDPR stipulate a reversal

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

32(1) and (2), Article 34(1), Article 35(1) and Article 35(3). or Art. 37 Para. 1 lit. b and lit. c GDPR), however, this circumstance does not mean that

analogously, Section 823 (1) and (2) BGB in conjunction with Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR. Claims under data protection law could be asserted by way

of 25,000 euros (Article 83, paragraph 2 GDPR; Article 100, §1, 13 ° WOG and Article 101 WOG). 18 55. Taking into account article 83 GDPR and the case law

breach of the obligations of Article L. 34-5 of the Postal and Electronic Communications Code 11. According to article L. 34-5 of the CPCE: " Direct prospecting

obligation imposed on public authorities under Article 37(1) GDPR. This obligation is also within Article 34(1) and (3) of the Spanish data protection law

Protection Ordinance Article 5, paragraph Article 5 (2) 1, letter c and letter f., Article 5, paragraph Article 6 (1) (a) Article 32 (1), (1), (33) 1 and

expressed in Article 5 (1 ) (a)) f, and reflected in the obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1), Article 32 (1 ) (b ) and (d) and Article 32 (2)

the meaning of Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR has a right to information from the person responsible within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR with regard to the processed

as supervisory body under the GDPR by closing this case without further investigations. According to Article 57(1)(f) GDPR, the DPA must handle a complaint

information pursuant to Article 15 (1) of the GDPR relates to "personal data relating to an individual" pursuant to Article 4 No. 1 of the GDPR. In addition, the