Search results

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

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

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

party. Therefore, the controller breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 7 GDPR, and Article 130 of the Italian privacy code, since the

Regulation, hereinafter: GDPR ), OJ No. L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1; §§ 1 paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, 18 paragraph 1 as well as 24 paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of

***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

concluding the contract. In this regard, there was no breach of Articles 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) GDPR. Second, the DPA determined that the documents signed by the data

conformity with Article 5.1. c), Article 6.1., Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. e) and Article 13.2. a) of the DGPS pursuant to Article 101 of

Coolblue could therefore not rely on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR as a legal basis for the processing of data subject’s personal data. However, the Court stated that

in particular also not a case of Art. 6 Para. 1 S. 1 lit. f. GDPR (predominant legitimate interests of the person responsible or a third party). According

meaning "unnecessary" (Article 17(1)(a) GDPR), "without a legal basis" (Article 17(1)(b) GDPR), or "unlawful" (Article 17(1)(d) GDPR), these conditions, as

according to the circumstances of this case, a controller did not violate Articles 4(11), 6(1)(a) and 7 GDPR by using a pre-ticked box, because the purpose of

the processing is based pursuant to Article 6(1)(a); d) breach of Article 6(1)(b) of RODO in conjunction with Article 81 of PrA by its erroneous application

shall obtain in advance a consent from an individual in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR for the processing of photographs in a way that can easily identify

it had a legitimate interest pursuant to and if this is necessary and proportional. Hence, it appeared the Court referred to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Moreover

data for the purposes of its legitimate interests in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Therefore, the data subject must be considered to have objected

concerned. The DPA also found a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, as well as Article 7 GDPR and Article 12(1) GDPR for not having published

data are set out in Article 6 of the GDPR . Insofar as relevant here, the processing is lawful under Article 6 (1) (a) of the GDPR if the data subject

processor as per Article 4(7) GDPR, Article 4(8) GDPR, and Article 28(3) GDPR. Therefore, the service provider acted as a data controller in its relations with

“legitimate interest” provided for in Article 6.1, f) of the GDPR. 33. In accordance with Article 6.1, f) of the GDPR and the case law of the Court of Justice