Search results

judgments of the European Court of Justice C-131/12 and C-136/17 In the judgments of the EU Court C-131/12 and C-136/17, it has been stated that the processing

but have requested a judgment, is incomprehensible. 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 6.9 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 The contested consideration of the court from para

under Article 4(1) GDPR. These statistics even included health data which qualify as a special category of personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. The Datatilsynet

expressed in Article 5 (1 ) (a)) f, and reflected in the obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1), Article 32 (1 ) (b ) and (d) and Article 32 (2)

seriously impair the achievement of purposes pursuant to Article 89(1) GDPR. In principle, Article 89(3) GDPR contains an opening clause. This provision was also

force: "According to Article 16 sentence 1 GDPR, every data subject has the right to request the controller (see Article 4(7) GDPR) to correct incorrect

the fine, the criteria specified in the same article 83. 111. Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20, paragraph III, of the Data Protection

also met. 3.3. In the matter 3.3.1. Legal situation: Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the CouncilArticle 12, of Regulation

to the public, violating Article 24 GDPR. The decision discusses as well, the relationship between directive 95/46/EC and GDPR. The DPA highlighted that

therefore of the opinion that no breach of Article 5.2 of the GDPR, Article 24.1 of the GDPR and Article 33 of the GDPR can be established. - As regards the

entitled to erasure under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, as the data processing was not lawful. In any case, the requirements of Article 6 GDPR were no longer met 6

of an infringement of the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR principle of fairness, and infringements of the Article 5(1)(b) and (c) GDPR principles of purpose limitation

complied with the requirements of Article 33(3) of the GDPR following the occurrence of the PDB (Article 83(2)(c) of the GDPR). The Company, as data controller

Therefore, given that Article 6(1), Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(1)(c), and Article 14 GDPR were infringed in connection to Article 5(1)(b), the

within the meaning of Article 4 no. 2 of the GDPR and the term "transfer" within the meaning of Article 44 et seq. of the GDPR. GDPR had to be differentiated

fine are set out in Article 83 of the General Data Protection Regulation. contained in Article. In the event of a breach of Article 5 of the General Data

reasons the Italian DPA, with the power conferred by Article 58(2)(d) and (f) and Article 83(3) and (5) GDPR, imposed to Fastweb multiple corrective measures

minimisation under Article 5(1)(b) and (c) GDPR, the EDPB decides this objection does not meet the requirements of Article 4(24) GDPR. On the objections

data breach (Article 32 GDPR). Does the plaintiff have a right to compensation according to Article 82(1) GDPR and does Article 82(3) GDPR stipulate a reversal

[The equivalent GDPR Article to Article 48(3)(a) EU GDPR is Article 46(3)(a) GDPR, and Article 50(1)(d) EU GDPR is Article 49(1)(d) GDPR.] Share blogs or