Search results

in the Member States. Example: Article 6(1)(a) GDPR Example: Not Art. 6 Abs 1 Lit a GDPR or Article 6 GDPR or GDPR Article 6, Sec 1(a) Recitals are also

to the data. The infringement of Article 32 of the GDPR led to a €10,000 fine (RON 48,748). The infringement of Article 3 of Law 506/2004 led to a fine

the exceptions to the one stop shop mechanism applies (Article 55(2), Article 56(2), or Article 66). It interesting to note that the Court confirms that

many waivers from GDPR for research purposes under Article 89 GDPR. It is questionable of the law is constitutional and in line with GDPR. § 151 of the Austrian

provisions of Article 58 (2) (i) of the GDPR, each supervisory authority has, inter alia, the power to impose an administrative fine under Article 83, depending

period allotted to it to do so (Article 15.1 combined with Article 12.3. of GDPR as well as Article 12.2. of the GDPR (obligation to facilitate the exercise

and (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)

as the obligation of accountability by article.5 par.2 GDPR, i.e. it violated fundamental principles of the GDPR on the protection of personal data. 8.

the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

of article 4.19 of the GDPR – (article 13.1. c) of the GDPR) and does not mention the data retention periods personal data processed (article 13.2. a)

violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the

meaning of Article 22(1) of that regulation.’ Moreover, the Court addressed the relationship between Article 22(2)(b) GDPR and national law. Article 22(2)(b)

2019, BVwerG 6 C 2.18 "It follows that the opening clauses of Article 6.2 and 6.3 GDPR for processing operations under Article 6.1(1)(e) GDPR do not cover

parent's request, thus violating Article 15(1) and (4) GDPR as well as the principle of accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR. The complainant requested

Moreover, the information provided as per Article 13 GDPR were not compliant with the requirements of Article 12 GDPR in light of the fact that TikTok services

decision within the meaning of Article 22(1) and Article 22(2) GDPR - then the opening clause of Article 22(2)(b) GDPR does not apply to national rules

processing of data concerning health laid down in Article 9(1) GDPR is possible under Article 9(2)(h) GDPR) in a case such as the present one, are there further

Articles 5(1)(b) and (e), 9(2)(j), 89(1) GDPR and Section 7(1)(1) and (2)(1) GDPR. In particular, it follows from Article 9(2)(j) GDPR that the processing of

previous relationship with her. The HDPA held that according to the GDPR and Article 11 of L. 3471/2006, in electronic political communication a politician

(VWA ./05, see point II.2), the XXXX (VWA ./06, see point II.2) and a certificate of representation (VWA ./07, see point II.2). I.2. As a result, the BA continued