Search results

illegally sharing images taken from this system in breach of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. There were legitimate interests for the defendants to install surveillance

consisting of Mr Hielke Hijmans, chairman, and Messrs Yves Poullet and Frank De Smet; Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

Municipality's use of the same. We hereby forward, as agreed with Allan Frank, the updated documentation so that Aarhus Municipality's case 2021-432-0056

validly relied on its legitimate interest as a legal basis under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR to disclose the personal data of the Complainant to the Third Party.

Authority, made up of Mr. Hielke Hijmans, Chairman, and Messrs. Yves Poullet and Frank De Smet; Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

Protection Authority, composed of Mr. Hielke Hijmans, chairman, and Messrs Frank De Smet and Dirk Van Der Kelen, members; Having regard to Regulation (EU)

it had found violations of Articles 5(1)(a)(c)(e), 13, 22(3), 25, 30(1)(c)(f)(g), 32, 35, 37(7), and 88 of the GDPR. In defensive briefs, UK Roofoods contended

is no violation of articles 5.1(c), 5.1(d), 5.1(e) and 5.1(f). Articles 5.1(c), (d) and (f), 5.2, 12, 16, 24, 25, 30.1, 31, 32, 38.3 and 38.6 of the AVG

with the minimum wage of its employees acts in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR if it observes the limits of necessity and data economy. The plaintiff

composed of Mr Hielke Hijmans, chairman and Messrs Dirk Van Der Kelen and Frank De Smet, members; Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

whether the processing could have been based on Articles 6(1)(a), (b) and (f) GDPR. It found that the first was de facto not applicable, the second prima

should not have happened. Never the less, the DPA assessed whether Article 6(1)(f) could be applicable. The DPA found that the balancing test conducted for the

processing is based on Article 6(1)(f); (e) where applicable, the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data; (f) where applicable, that the controller

composed of Mr Hielke Hijmans, chairman, and Messrs. Christophe Boeraeve and Frank De Smet, members; Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

Protection Authority, composed of Mr Hielke Hijmans, chairman, and Messrs Frank De Smet and Dirk Van Der Kelen, members; Having regard to Regulation (EU)

Protection Authority, composed of Mr Hielke Hijmans, chairman and Messrs Frank De Smet and Romain Robert; Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the

Vlaanderen. To support its argument, Controller 1 referred to Articles 57(1)(f) and 51(1) GDPR. Second, controller 2 argued that the court had only referred

Authority, composed of Mr Hielke Hijmans, chairman, and Mr Jelle Stassijns and Frank De Smet, members; Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

Authority, composed of Mr Hielke Hijmans, chairman and Messrs Yves Poullet and Frank De Smet; Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

someone. The DPA therefore held that the controller violated Article 5(1)(f), Article 5(2), Article 24 and Article 32 as it did not conduct a proper identity