Search results

protection of the private sector. For example, in Flinkkila and Others v. Finland, it pointed out that when a photograph of a person who is not a public actor

The concerned supervisory authorities were located in Norway, Denmark and Finland. The DPA held that any processing of personal data must comply with the

Authorities) were located in Germany, Denmark, Austria, Italy, Poland and Finland. The controller stated that it did not have the obligation to provide access

Luxembourg, France, Sweden, Thuringia, Hesse, Norway, Berlin, Hungary, Finland, Saarland, Slovenia, North Rhine-Westphalia, Portugal, Slovakia, Greece

supervisory authorities in Germany, Norway, Estonia, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Finland and Austria. 1.2 What is stated in the complaint The complaint essentially

Authorities included Germany, Slovenia, France, Denmark. Spain, Norway, Italy, Finland, Poland, Belgium, Portugal, Cyprus, Estonia and the Netherlands. Due to

supervisory authority, cooperated with other European DPAs (in Germany, Finland, France etc.) to investigate cross-border processing pursuant to Article

controller—than the one imposed in the present case. For instance, the Finnish supervisory authority imposed a fine of 145 600 EUR for an infringement

decision. The concerned supervisory authorities were the DPA's of Denmark, Finland, Germany, France, Norway and the Netherlands. The Swedish DPA started an

decision. The concerned authorities were the DPA's of Norway, Denmark, Finland and Germany. In this complaint, the data subject stated that the controller

protection authorities in Germany, Denmark, Austria, Italy, Poland, and Finland. The complaint Postal address: The complainant has mainly stated she requested

application an extra urgent character. By letter of 18 April 2020, sent from Finland, [the applicant] stated that he was prevented from attending the hearing

data protection authorities in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ger- many, Finland, Norway and Poland. The complaint The complaint states the following. On

France, Italy, Lower Saxony (Germany), Bavaria- Private Sector (Germany), Finland and Denmark. All of them under article 4.22.b) of the GDPR, given that the

-Westfalen”),hereinafter referred to collectively as the “DE SAs”; the Finnish supervisory authority (“Tietosuojavaltuutetun toimisto”), hereinafter the

No 84/2015, B.11Korkein hallinto-oikeus [Supreme Administrative Court of Finland], decision of 15 August 2017, No 3736/3/15, FI:KHO:2017:T3872; High Court

company that offers qualified specialists and service personnel from Holland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and to the German markets.STAFFRENT™for result-focused

the names and addresses of residents by members of Jehovah's witnesses in Finland, and subsequently the dissemination of that date with other members on the

Spain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Hungary as well as the United Kingdom.

that one cookie and several tracks to servers (sic) located in Germany, Finland and USA were present on the webpage at issue. As [the complainants] referenced