Search results

term "pain and suffering" is not used in Art. 82 GDPR or in the other norms of the GDPR. Art. 82 (1) GDPR only standardizes a “claim for damages” for every

the provisions of the GDPR, in particular Article 5 (1) GDPR, article 24 and article 28 GDPR, all this based on article 58.2, d) GDPR and article 100, §1

Charter. 61 First, it should be noted that, in the light of recital 19 of the GDPR and recitals 9 to 12 of Directive 2016/680 and by virtue of Article 2(1)

law.” 35. According to Article 9 of the GDPR, health data belongs to special personal data. Recital 51 of the GDPR defines that data as: ” Personal data

Article 2 Paragraph 2 Letter c GDPR is not fulfilled. The material scope of application of the GDPR according to Article 2 GDPR is undoubtedly fulfilled in

provision unconstitutional does not impede the full implementation of the GDPR, since GDPR is directly applicable and most of its provisions are directly effective

the GDPR (see statement of objections, page 2, Ad.A.1.). 11See in particular articles 5,1, a) and 12 of the GDPR, see also recital (39) of the GDPR. 12

Court of Stuttgart points out that the absence of information of Article 13 GDPR constitutes an unfair trade-based action as understood by § 3 of the national

Adopted 13 GDPR for processing on foot of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR . The IE recalls the general requirement of transparencyunder Article5(a)GDPR 54,anditsp

with the GDPR or whether it also covers damages arising from infringements of any provision of the GDPR. It pointed out that Article 82(1) GDPR refers to

violated Article 6(1) GDPR. However, this violation alone was not sufficient to justify a claim for damages. Pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, a claim for damages

interpretation of the GDPR. Second, the court argued with the drafting history of the GDPR which connects Article 15(3) GDPR to Article 20(1) GDPR, showing that

101 and 102 TFEU (see Recital 150 GDPR) only applies to those within the meaning of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (see Recital 150 GDPR). is relevant for the

Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned a Luxembourg

therefore violated Articles 9(1) GDPR out of negligence. The DPA fined the controller €1,600,000 pursuant of Article 83(5)(a) GDPR and considered this a high

95/46/EC (hereinafter: general data protection regulation or GDPR), and Article 6 (1) of the GDPR. 2. The Authority finds that Customer 1 violated the principle

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

less severity depending on the effects 86 GDPR, art. 16 87 GDPR, art. 17.1.a 88 GDPR, art. 18.1.a 89 G.HAAS, GDPR legal guide: the regulations on the protection

carry out an investigation of SLIMPAY's GDPR compliance. The DPA found out that SLIMPAY breached several GDPR provisions. The DPA noted that some of the

(Article 31 GDPR); - failure to comply with both the accountability obligation (Article 5.2 of the GDPR) and the duty to cooperate (Article 31 of the GDPR) with