Search results

increase or decrease. 4.4 Conclusion The AP sets the total fine at €400,000. 8For the justification, see paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. 24/25Date Unidentified

paragraph 3.3. Legal Protection' of the AVG Implementation Act, Article 34 reads as follows: Article 34. Applicability of the General Administrative Law Act by

measures to security of processing, in accordance with Article 32 GDPR, in connection with Article 24 GDPR, as the controller did not take into account the risks

the same search results on the basis of Article 12 (4) GDPR has been rejected by Google . Article 21 (1) of the GDPR provides that a data subject has the

processor, Vamavi Phone SL, had violated Article 48(1) LGT, Article 21 GDPR in link with Article 23 LOPDGDD and Article 28 GDPR by making a commercial call on behalf

paragraph 3.3. Legal Protection' of the AVG Implementation Act, Article 34 reads as follows: Article 34. Applicability of the General Administrative Law Act by

provisions of the GDPR relating to the principles of data protection (article 5 of the GDPR) and the lawfulness of processing (article 6 of the GDPR). An infringement

compatible by virtue of a legal provision (see Article 6.4. of the RGPD). Based on the criteria in section 6.4 of the EDR: there is no link between the two

handed down under this article." III Article 73 of the LOPDDG states Infringements considered serious: "In accordance with Article 83(4) of Regulation (EU)

DE SA’s objection on Article 33(3) GDPR fails to meet the requirements set out in Article 4(24) GDPR Infringement of Article 34 GDPR on the communication

in Article 17 GDPR (cf. Article 17 (3) b GDPR). In that case, the data subject does not have the right to object as referred to in Article 21 GDPR, because

provided for in Article 56(1), read in conjunction with Article 56(2), read in conjunction with Article 56(3), read in conjunction with Article 56(4), read in

violated Article 34(2) GDPR, because he only informed the data subject of the alleged data loss. However, the information obligations of Article 34 GDPR provide

* clause n ° 12 regarding - of article 6 and article 32 / II of the Data Protection Act for all contracts, - of article L.132-1 of the Consumer Code in

power conferred by Article 58(2)(d) and (f) and Article 83(3) and (5) GDPR, imposed to Fastweb multiple corrective measures and a fine of € 4.501.868. Share

obligations under Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 of GDPR. Article 5 (1) : Ticketmaster has failed to comply with the requirements of GDPR including to process

DPA (AEPD) imposed a €1000 fine on a beauty salon for breaching Article 17 GDPR and Article 21 LSSI. The salon sent a marketing SMS to a client months after

page 34 et seq. 23Investigation report, page 34, point 4.4.8.1. 24Investigation report, page 34, point 4.4.8.2.1.1 25Investigation report, page 34, point

requests for information according to Article 15(1) GDPR. The ‘Business secrecy’ exception only applied to Article 15(4) GDPR, where a data subject would request

manual and human processing errors. 5.6. Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 34 (1) of the Regulation 1, that when a breach