Search results

the municipality still breached Article 13 GDPR, they did have a valid legal basis for processing under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. On October 14, 2019, a kindergarten

April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR), in conjunction with Article 3, Article 4(2) and Article 6(1)(b), all of which are applicable to the

the basis of article 6.1 e) GDPR read together with articles 5.2 GDPR and 24.1 GDPR. 3) Violation of Articles 12.1, 12.6, 13.1 and 13.2 GDPR: the Inspection

effect, the judgment in eDate Advertisin and Others, C-509/09 and C-161/10, EU:C2011:685, paragraph 45).C/ Jorge Juan 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob

the processing, together with the Privacy Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter c or e, cf. Article 6 No. 3, as of Arendal municipality is stated as a basis for

articles L.111-1, L.111-2, L.111-3, L.221- 15, L.224-30, L.224-29, L.224-33, L.212-1, L.212-3, L.2141-1, L.211-1, L.232-1, R.631-3, L.621-1, L.621-2, L.621-7

accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. Ten DPAs (AT, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL, NO, SE) raised objections, in accordance with Article 60(4) GDPR, to the Draft

provided for in Article 5(1)(a), (e) and (f), Article 5(2), Article 24(1) and (2), Article 28(3), Article 30(1)(d) and (f) and Article 32(1) of the General

in the plublic interest, under the data minimisation principle and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. A citizen requested the deletion of their personal data into the

statute-barred is therefore sufficient legal reasons. c) A right to information from § 3 para. 3 and 4 VVG is also ruled out. This only refers to missing

Consequently, based on Article 83(5)(a) GDPR, the hospital was fined to pay a fine of EUR 30.000,00 for violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Corrective measures

data on the basis of Article 6.1.e GDPR ? - Did the administration sharing confidential data with a third party violates article 25 GDPR ? - Should the administration

reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also ordered the controller to erase the

instruction, under Article 28(1) GDPR. Thus, it has not been decided on whether or not MaCom could process information in accordance with Article 6(3)(a), (1)(a)

the GDPR. According to the defendant, this partner is thus not processor within the meaning of Article 4 (8) GDPR. Consequently, Article 28 (3) GDPR does

of 6 October 1982, C.I.L.F.I.T., C-283/81, EU:C:1982:335, para. 21; judgment of 15 September 2005, C-495/03, EU:C:2005:552, para. 33; judgment of 6 December

contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR), nor could be based on legitimate interest of the controller (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Consent (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR) could

patient data cf. Article 32 GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and inadequate internal controls cf. Article 24 GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. Østfold Hospital

above, the restricted panel concludes that Article 38.3 of the GDPR does not have been respected by the inspected. C. On the failure to provide information

proportionality requisite to the minimisation principle from Article 5(2)(c) GDPR. Also, according to Article 89(3) LOPDGDD, the use of audio recording systems in the