Search results

accordance with Article 4(1) GDPR, according to the DPA. The Court of Appeal of Brussels held that, in accordance with Article 16 GDPR, the data subject has the

in Article 25 GDPR. Additionally, the AEPD concluded that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, noting that although the GDPR does not demand

article 4.1 of the GDPR, are a Personal data and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In the article 4.2 of the GDPR defines the concept

5(1)(f) GDPR and a fine of €100,000 for the violation of Article 37 GDPR. The DPA issued a reprimand for the violations of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR and Article

information required under Art. 14 GDPR. recital 60 The defendant requests Recital 61 reject the complaint. Recital 62 As justification, she repeats her

101 and 102 TFEU (see Recital 150 GDPR) only applies to those within the meaning of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (see Recital 150 GDPR). is relevant for the

Paragraph 3 GDPR specifies content requirements for an appropriate legal basis, which are clear and precise in the context of recital 41 of the GDPR and should

Charter. 61 First, it should be noted that, in the light of recital 19 of the GDPR and recitals 9 to 12 of Directive 2016/680 and by virtue of Article 2(1)

3 of Recital 51 GDPR, the DSB found that the pictures taken from the data subject did not constitute biometric data according to Article 9(1) GDPR because

the GDPR). The DSB is a supervisory authority within the meaning of Article 51 GDPR Article 51, GDPR (see also Section 18 Paragraph 1 DSG). The GDPR grants

time of the complaint. The DPA held this to be a violation of Article 38(6) GDPR because the officer was in a position of a conflict of interest. In this

have a past infringement of the GDPR determined by the data protection authority since § 24(1) BDSG and Article 77(1) GDPR refer to “infringes” in the present

wrongly relied on the GDPR to redact documents. In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the relationship between the GDPR and domestic evidentiary

24.1. of the GDPR] include the implementation of appropriate data protection policies by the data controller”. 29. Recital 74 of the GDPR adds that “it

Letter a GDPR). (Article 58 Paragraph One Litera a, GDPR). From this provision, taken together with Article 31 of the GDPR, Article 31 of the GDPR results

Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. When the cameras also record, as in this case, public or private spaces, this provisions doesn’t apply. Therefore, the GDPR was applicable

under Union law at the time of the decision of the Higher Regional Court. 38 However, the first argument against this seems to be that these requirements

reinstate the employer for the violation of his data protection rights under the GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The decision

(Article 5(2) GDPR), of engagement of a processor (Article 28 GDPR), and in respect of the security of processing of personal data (Article 32 GDPR). However

also supported by Recital 128 GDPR. Therefore, the court found the independent nature of the church supervisory authorities to be GDPR-compliant. Second