Search results

pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Failure to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with the GDPR The DPA

resume. 3 The Marktenhof states in point 4.7. of the judgment article 6, d) and article 6, e) of the GBA law, but this should be read as article 6.1. d) and

violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/9 The proposed

required by Article 12 GDPR. The DPA clarified that the right of information and the right of access are distinct. An access request under Article 15 GDPR is not

GDPR and Article 66.2 WOG); and • compliance with the transparency obligations (Article 12 GDPR) and the te provide information (Article 13 GDPR). Page

DPA held that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to

data breach and at least the data and measures referred to in Article 33(3)(b), (c) and (d). 3. The communication to the person concerned referred to in paragraph

as established in article 5 of the GDPR. The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. III The GDPR defines personal

grounds under Art. 17 para. 1 lit. c GDPR and Art. 17 para. 1 lit. d GDPR. 14 a) The injunction ground under Art. 17 para. 1 lit. d GDPR does not apply because

APPEAR: A D.D.D., for the violation of article 6 of the RGPD typified in article 83.5.a). REQUIRE: A D.D.D., in accordance with the provisions of article 58.2

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

legal basis for their processing in article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However, according to article 17(1)(c) and article 21(1) GDPR, upon receiving an erasure request

confidentiality established by Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Was there a personal data breach? The AEPD considered that there was an infringement of Article 5(1)(f), as there

their rights'. 91. The rights referred to in Article 14(1)(c), (d) and (e) and in Article 14(2)(a), (b), (d) and (g) AVG such information shall not be required

to [plaintiff] now that the court in para. 2.24. from the 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 final judgment (see paragraph 2.8 above) had already ruled

expressed in Article 5 (1 ) (a)) f, and reflected in the obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1), Article 32 (1 ) (b ) and (d) and Article 32 (2)

objected to direct marketing as per Article 21 GDPR and requested for their data to be deleted as per Article 17 GDPR. The Finnish DPA held that the controller

as well as the presentation d claim before the DGSFP and before this body for the same facts (article 83.2, a) of the GDPR). . - The activity of the claimed

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: After the period granted for the formulation

Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 17/17 3. Violation of article 34 of the RGPD in relation to article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the RGPD, with