Search results

information required under Art. 14 GDPR. recital 60 The defendant requests Recital 61 reject the complaint. Recital 62 As justification, she repeats her

legal grounds for the processing: Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, however, was only recently added as a legal ground

personal data from Article 9 GDPR. According to the AEPD, even if the controller may had relied on the exemption on Article 9 GDPR(2)(f), since the data were

The Spanish authority held that the defendant had infringed Article 6(1) GDPR by disclosing the video without the consent of those appearing in it. The

accordance with Article 6(2) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR for adaptation to the application of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The court stressed that

investigative actions. In light of provisions (Article 4 (15) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR) the vaccination of a person against Covid-19 implies the

process) and that, therefore, in view of recital 50 of the GDPR, there is no need to invoke Article 6(4) of the GDPR. (1)(b), on a separate legal basis other

only investigating GDPR infringements but also breaches of the Directive ePrivacy, transcribed into French law. It reminded that GDPR and ePrivacy each

information under Article 13 GDPR, and for the processing of personal data in a manner contrary to Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. A data subject submitted a

AEPD both the GDPR and the LSSI regulate the same situation. It considers the LSSI a lex specialis that is to be applied instead of the GDPR since the controller’s

10. Recital 32 of the GDPR materially states that "When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them". Recital 42 materially

procedural GDPR violation had occurred, arguing that the Austrian DPA transferred the complaint to the AEPD when pursuant to Article 60(8) GDPR, the Austrian

trends during the COVID-19 pandemic was carried out in compliance with the GDPR, since the Government had implemented appropriate measures to prevent data

applicants' rights. Consequently, the Ministry violated Article 32 GDPR and Article 24 GDPR. The DPA also found that visa applicants were insufficiently informed

communications using the GDPR, specifically on the basis of Article 4.11, Article 6.1.a GDPR (consent requirement) and Article 13 GDPR (information to be provided)

data in the context of telephone jokes. Article 6 GDPR (legality of processing) and Articles 13 and 14 GDPR (transparency) were infringed. The decision is

it has nothing to do with the matter that the reference to the Recital 64 of the GDPR to which the defendant refers, like those other subsequent references

Article 15(1) GDPR. The data subject was not entitled to further disclosure. On the applicability of the GDPR: The court determined that the GDPR and the data

of Article 9 GDPR. In the DSB held that the processing violated Articles 5, 6 and 9 GDPR: Consent under Articles 6(1)(a), 7 and 9(2)(a) GDPR cannot be considered

alleged violation of articles 32.1 and 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4.a) and 83.5.a) of the GDPR, with warning. Receipt by the claimant of the agreement