Search results

connection with Article 5 paragraph 1 point c, Article 9 paragraph 1, Article 58 paragraph 2 point f, point g and point i and with Article 83 paragraph 2

defined in the first paragraph. Article 4 of the Act, cf. Points 2 and 4 Article 3 of the Act and points 1 and 2. Article 4 of the Regulation. According

(f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and

be answered on 23/04/2019 and also forwarded to the Court of Occupation (Document 26}." r PAGE □1-□□□□ 1429503- □□□4-□□ 15-□2-□1-;i L _J,Court of appeal

" *** DIRECCION.2 *** *** LOCALIDAD.1 CCAA.1 " . In section“ NIF ” the *** NIF.1. And in the section " Telephone 1" the mobile number*** PHONE . 2. The

an infringement of Article 5 (1) a), b) and c) and (2) of the GDPR and Article 24 (1) of the GDPR; and - an infringement of article 8 of the law of 21

having knowledge of the following: 1.1 In general, marketing actions can be classified attending to several criteria. 1.1.1. Campaigns managed directly by

these allegations, she placed reliance upon Recitals 1, 4 and 7 together of Article 4(11) of GDPR. Whelan J., has stated the evidence indicates that the disclosure

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

breach and had failed to do so within the timeframe set out in Article 33(1) of the GDPR, meaning that the company had breached this provision. Consequently

other legal basis for processing under Article 6 GDPR, the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR. Taking into account the low income

Based on 20 of 23 working days in the relevant period, this amounts to an amount of 20/23 x € 3,297.00 x 1.08 = € 3,096.31 gross in salary, 20/23 x € 4,110

it deemed the restrictions on the right of access (Article 15 GDPR]) according to Article 23(1)(h) GDPR legitimate after a reasonable balancing of the public

basis of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR because its processing activities infringed Articles 5(1)(a)(b) and (c), 6(1), 12(1)-(5), 15(1) and 17(1) of the GDPR

the data could be processed under the legitimate interest basis (ARTICLE 6(1)(f) GDPR). The tribunal weighted the different interests at stake and decided

him. Article 23 of the GDPR and Article 41 of the UAVG specify the restrictions on the right of access. What do the parties on appeal think? 3.1. Plaintiff

questions: 1° Should Article 72.2 of the e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(f) of that directive and with Article 95 of the

in point 1 of the judgment pursuant to Article 145 § 1 of the Act on Administrative Law. 1 of the judgment pursuant to Article 145 § 1 item. 1c of the Act

pursuant to Art. 14 par. 5 lit. b GDPR? The President of UODO found that: 1) The applicable provision is the Art. 14 GDPR since the data controller collects

for the performance of the contract.” It compared Article 7(b) Directive 95/46/EC to Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and found that the two are “almost identical”. Hence