Search results

pénalité), C-439/19, EU:C:2021:504, paragraph 61, judgment Nowak, C-434/16, EU:C:2017:994, paragraph 33 and judgment Rijkeboer, C-553/07, EU:C:2009:293,

around the processing of personal data subject to Article 10 GDPR. Pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the Privacy Appeals Board conducted a balancing test

under Article 77 GDPR was very clear and limited in scope. However, the DSB went on to assert a violation of Article 12 GDPR and Article 15(1)(h) GDPR, acting

meaning 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.

DSGVO/BDSG , Article 15 paragraph 33; Schaffland/Holthaus in Schaffland/Wiltfang, GDPR, Article 15 GDPR paragraph 44; loc. A. Härting, CR 2019, 219). 136 (3) In

exercising their rights in bad faith. The AEPD brought forward Article 12(5) GDPR, as well as Article 7 of the Spanish Civil Code, that states that rights must

outside the material scope of the GDPR. Also, with regards to the definition of personal data from Article 4(1) GDPR, the DPA did not reach a firm conclusion

additional submissions regarding Article 83(3) GDPR (“Meta IE Submissions on Article 83(3) GDPR”). December 2021 On3December2021,theIESAshareditsDraftDecisionwiththeCSAs

more details. Article 2: Substantive scope Article 2.2.c: Exclusively personal or domestic activity Article 3: Territorial scope Article 4.1: Personal

this case under Article 6(1)(a) or 6(1)(c)? If Article 6(1)(a) applies, do the requirements for parental consent under Article 8 GDPR also apply? Did the

and at least contain the information and measures referred to in Article 33 (2). 3 (b), (c) and (d). The deadline for compliance is January 7, 2020 . The

purpose limitation in accordance with Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter b GDPR (Paal/Pauly/Paal, 3rd edition 2021, GDPR Article 15 Rn. 24). The plaintiff has a right

currently enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (judgments of the Court of Justice of 18 March 2010, C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08, Alassini and

to the GDPR, imposed a fine in the amount of € 10.000 and ordered Cavauto srl. to communicate the proposed changes in view of compliance with GDPR. The Italian

currently enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (judgments of the Court of Justice of 18 March 2010, C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08, Alassini and

their employees. The DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Following a visit to the premises of two public

highly sensitive personal data exposed, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2), cf. Article 24. An employee in a municipal health care center

publication of the press release of 17 June 2020 infringed Article 54(2) GDPR and Article 48(1) and Article 64(3) WOG. This press release described that the DPA was

company was not compliant with Article 13 GDPR. The CNPD held that the controller infringed Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and decided to: - impose

within the meaning of Article 26 GDPR, as determined in section 2.3. 135. The legal provision on data protection by design, Article 25 GDPR, states expressly