Search results

Belgian DPA dismissed a complaint based on article 95, §1, 3 LCA because the data subject did not adequately prove a breach of the GDPR. The Belgian DPA stated

2016/679, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 4 of the Act, and thus the powers of the Data Protection Authority, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 39 of the Act, covers the

2016/679, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 4 of the Act, and thus the powers of the Data Protection Authority, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 39 of the Act, covers the

based on Article 3, Clause 2, Article 5, Clause 1 of the Data Regulation "a", "b" and point 2, Article 6, point 1, point "a", Article 7, Article 27, point

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE A.A.A., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 6 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of €10,000 (ten

DPA fined a company €38,800 for unlawfully disclosing personal data from a surveillance footage, thus breaching Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6. The company

initiate a sanctioning procedure against the claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH:

basis for the above processing was Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. The plaintiff was the owner of a flat in a residential complex, where the

Administrative court held that the consent given to a first controller under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR to transfer the data to a second controller does not extend to the

all phone calls cannot be considered necessary under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and Article 5(1)(c) GDPR given the intrusive nature of the processing compared

share their location, in violation of Article 5 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 7 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, and Article 25 GDPR. The DPA, however, claimed that the

that these services are based on a different legal basis Art. 6 (1) GDPR than the consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit. a GDPR was based. services on were used

(Considering 40 GDPR), Article 6.1 of the GDPR is therefore applicable and not RD 1720/2007 used by the defendant. Thus, the aforementioned article 6.1 GDPR establishes

rely on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR for processing such data, in the sense that the processing was necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a public

As a result, the consent did not meet the requirements of Article 4(11) GDPR, and thus the controller could not rely on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR as a legal

Paragraph 1 lit. a. Article 6 (1) (a), Article 7 (1) and (2), Article 12 (1), Article 13 (1) (c), Article 57 (1) (a) and (h), Article 58 (1) (c) . 1 b and

regulation's article 6, subsection 1, letter a, and article 4, no. 11, cf. the regulation's article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letter a. On this

of section 6 of article 45 of the LOPD so that within a month from this act of notification: 2.1.- COMPLY with the provisions of article 6.1 of the LOPD

***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 6.1 and another of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 letters a) and b) of the RGPD, a fine of €1,500 (€1

Para. 1 lit. a and b, Art. 8 Para. 1 and 3, Art. 15 Para. 1, Art. 17 Para. 1 lit. a, Art. 51 Para. 1, Art. 57 Para. 1 lit. f and Art. 77 Para. 1 of Regulation