Search results

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

guarantees the proper functioning justice (social foundation). In Z. v. Finland, the Eur. D.H. addresses, for the first time, at least 12 directly, the

sedeagpd.gob.es 3/29 Germany, Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Spain, France, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden

without the consent of the person concerned (see, mutatis mutandis, Z v. Finland, cited above, section 96).” (59) The Convention States’ margin of appreciation

examined by the ECtHR { Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy andSatamedia Oy v Finland [Grand Chamber], 931/13. s. case, 27 June 2017}, whichrecalled in its decision

Judgment of 27 June 2017 in Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland , pp . 931/13 , para. .137 ) . When the ECtHR recognizes that personal data

the competent data protection authorities of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, France, United Kingdom"

supervisory authorities concerned were the authorities of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway and Germany. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below

ECtHR of 27 June 2017, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, CE:ECHR:2017:0627JUD000093113, paragraph 165). In such a way that for a

The European Court of Human Rights is in the same direction in case I. v. Finland 13 examining an action on the basis of whether o processor managed to "guarantee"

services. It has its headquarters in Norway and is also active in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. The company has over 270 clubs, about 9,000 employees and more

respective country-specific domain endings (e.g. Greece, Sweden, Spain, Finland, Denmark and Austria) within the European Union. Via wikipedia.eu you will

the requirements of this Article’ . • The Tietosuojavaltuutetun toimisto (Finnish supervisory authority - hereinafter the ‘FI SA’) shared its views on 15

64 ; see also ruling “Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland”, “application no. 931/13”, 27 June 2017, paras. 129-131) The considerations

Sweden, Slovenia, Norway, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Denmark, France, Finland, Greece, Spain, Luxemburg, Czech Republic, Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, and

publication of alphabetical lists in regional newspapers of data obtained from Finnish tax authorities. These comprised of the names of data subjects and their

22009/93, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0225JUD002200993, NJ 1999/516 m.nt. G. Knigge (Z/Finland), point 95, ECtHR 10 October 2006, 7508/02, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1010JUD000750802

authorities), the Netherlands, Austria, Spain, the United Kingdom, France, Finland and Poland, in circumstances where those authorities were acting as concerned