Search results

Treaty establishing the European Community, such as those covered by Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union, and in no case is it applicable to

national law. The data subject had a bank account at a Dutch bank, ING Bank N.V. (the controller). The account had a credit limit of €250. The data subject

failed to prove an urgent interest. The complainant asked his bank (ING Bank N.V.) to remove his data from the BKR registration (office for credit) under Article

person responsible for the processing who has committed the infringement.>>. V In the present case, it is clear from the investigations carried out by that

ECLI:NL:PHR:2023:935 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 [plaintiff] B.V. (hereinafter: '[plaintiff]') in return for PME Investment Services B.V. (hereinafter: 'PME') PME installed a housing

Stuttgart 1893 e.V.", a registered association under German law, into a stock corporation ("VfB Stuttgart 1893 AG"), VfB Stuttgart 1893 e.V. transferred several

Foundation's strategy on World ID capabilities and its technical implementation; v. ZipCode GmbH made a significant contribution to the Orb verification process;

of 10 September 2009 - C-97/08 - EuZW 2009, 816, 821 [Akzo Nobel and others v. Commission], para. 54 et seq.; ECJ, Judgment of 14 December 2006 - T-259/02

criminal proceedings concerned, including of V.S., has been gathered. It is explained in the application that V.S. has been formally accused of an offence

advertising. However, in a recent judgment C-252/21 Facebook Inc. and Others v Bundeskartellamt by the Court of Justice (hereinafter “Bundeskartellamt Judgment”)

the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment is “Google Spain and Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González 'C-131/12

“augmented” cameras, algorithmic processing. Basis for the referral: Article 10, V. of Law No. 2023-380 of May 19, 2023 relating to the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic

2018 (loc.cit., Art. 18 marginal 38; OVG Lüneburg, U.v. 20.6.2019 - 11 LC 121/17 - para 43; VG Stade, B.v. 9.10.2018 - 1 B 1918/18 - para 30). A common feature

any special categories of personal data. Based on CJEU - C-136/17 - GC et al v. CNIL, a weighing of the interests must also be made for special categories

43 of the German Rules of the Administrative Courts (Bayerischer VGH, Urt. v. 9.4.2003 - 24 B 02.646 -, juris, paragraph 22, Sodan, in: Sodan/Ziekow, VwGO

February 21, 2019, re II .: from May 25, 2018, to IV .: from May 25, 2018, to V .: from May 25, 2018 and to VI .: from May 25th, 2018, I. the unlawful processing

DPD, in accordance with Articles 13.1.b) and 14.1.b) of the GDPR. 6WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p.15 ___________________

Mr. J. van Overdam in Utrecht, by Trigion Brand- en Beveiligingstechniek B.V., established in Woerden, the Netherlands, defendant, hereafter referred to

its website: https://www.ip-rs.si/novice/odgovorno-ravnanje-vseh-je-kljucno-v-casu-virusne-krize-1170/ The decision below is a machine translation of the

in this paragraph, according to the circumstances of each case particular; V By virtue of the provisions of Article 58.2 of the RGPD, the Spanish Agency