Search results

each individual case. Each supervisory authority must ensure that the imposition of administrative penalty charges in each individual case are effective

The first major case that the Supreme Court of Norway decided on regarding the right to privacy was To mistenkelige personer (Two Suspicious Individuals)

appearance of data subjects in these photographs. The DPA referred to CJEU case law, stating that the image of the individual photographed or filmed constitutes

had access to the case file and the evidence contained therein on at least two occasions, preceded by requests to consult the case file, which were effectively

be. It appears from the case documents that X AS and the Trade Union disagree somewhat on the facts of the case. Although the case before the tribunal concerns

exclusively stood up on behalf of the State in the present case and in the cases with case numbers C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576074 / HA RK 19-694

Bundesdatenschutzgesetz Decided: 07.12.2023 Parties: Schufa Case Number/Name: C‑634/21 SCHUFA European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2023:957 Reference from: VG

factually differentiated this case from Facebook Ireland C-311/18. In comparison to this case, Facebook Ireland is a case where the export of personal data

particular case, given the interests represented and the scope of the case, a decision as soon as possible is desirable. In the present case, the Chamber

concluded. Therefore, there is a case in which the right to inform the public regarding accurate information concerning a criminal case prevails over the right

resumed processing of the case. It appears from the case documents that the Data Inspectorate, in the period they have worked on the case, has been contacted

appeal. Relevant cases: HDPA (Greece) - 12/2024 , HDPA (Greece) - 15/2024 Please find relevant provisions of laws and texts cited in this case below: Law 2472/1997

GDPR A4, GDPR A5 (1) Judge Thyness: Questions and background of the case (2) The case concerns the validity of the Privacy Board's decision of 21 January

objective pursued by an EU instrument, in this case, the GDPR" (116). Turning to the facts of the case, the EDPB outlines a number of factors which, in

in conflict with section 3 (2) InsoBekV. In that case, the senate is convinced that it is not a case of dissemination of the information beyond publication

panels for: civil cases, criminal cases, cases involving children or family matters, cases involving administrative or tax disputes, cases related to labour

result, pursuant to Article 21(1) GDPR. In accordance with the case law of the CJEU in case C-136/17, “the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove

following the permanent case law of the Court of Justice, it is solely the duty of the national court acting in the main case and responsible for the decision

prosecuting authority stated in summary, citing the case law of the European Court of Justice, case law and literature opinions, that "political affinity"

simplified procedure for less complex cases, to better face the growing number of complaints and focus more on significant cases. The simplified sanction procedure