Search results

in art. 10, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree lgs. no. 150 of 1 September 2011 envisaged for the filing of the appeal as indicated below. HAS the publication

a purpose falling under Art. 5 Para. 3 Sentence 1 GG (cf. OLG Celle, ZUM 2011, 341, 345 [juris para. 32]) . The protection conferred by Article 5(3) sentence

Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 9 September 2011 (ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BQ8097). 4.13. The following circumstances are relevant to the assessment

Court held in its judgment of 8 March 2011, upheld by the Bucharest County Court in its decision of 4 October 2011, that there had been no medical negligence

administration of church taxes by the Berlin tax authorities of December 19, 2011 (OJ 2011, 3041) transferred to the tax offices. The determination of the facts

Supreme Administrative Court of Appeal in Białystok in the decision of 6 April 2011, I ACz 279/11 (not published), emphasising that neither the telecommunication

Regulation, Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of Legislative Decree no. 150/2011, an appeal against this measure may be lodged with the ordinary judicial

Regulation, of art. 152 of the Code and 10 of Legislative Decree no. 150/2011, against this provision, it is possible to appeal before the ordinary judicial

that the National Court, in its Judgment of November 29, 2013, (Rec. 455/2011), Sixth Legal Basis warns, regarding the legal nature of this figure, which

the interests of the data subject. In its decision of 9 September 2011 (ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BQ8097), issued under the (then) Personal Data Protection Act, the

art. 10, paragraph 3, of the legislative decree. lgs. n. 150 of 1 September 2011 provided for the filing of the appeal as indicated below. HAS pursuant to

NL: HR: 2007: BA3529. 7 A.o. Amsterdam Court of Appeal 5 July 2011 ECLI: NL: GHAMS: 2011: BR3020, Supreme Court 29 June 2007 ECLI: NL: HR: 2007: AZ4663

the Santander assessment criterion (Supreme Court, 9 September 2011, ECLI: NL: HR: 2011: BQ8097). The Den Bosch Court of Appeal also ruled in the above

the articles 152 of the Code and 10 of Legislative Decree lg. 1 September 2011, no. 150, opposition to this provision may be lodged with the ordinary judicial

standards. In the opinion of the court, the (successive) standards NEN 7510:2011 and NEN 7510-2:2017 are relevant to the points of dispute at hand. Here too

what was clarified by the Guarantor with the general provision of 15 June 2011 (in www.garanteprivacy.it, web doc. 1821257) with specific regard to the

Google from that particular device).” Executive Order No. 1148 of December 9, 2011 on requirements for information and consent when storing or accessing information

commercial law, the Court of Justice decided in its judgment of 25 October 2011 eDate Advertising42 : « 48. It is therefore necessary to adapt the connecting

the ICO based its legal reasoning in previous similar ICO decisions dated 2011 (FS50290504) and, specially, 2016 (FS50577377). In this last one, it highlighted

measure expressed (SSAN of January 20, ro 2013, rec. 577/2011, and of March 20, 2013, rec. 421/2011). However, the specific terms in which the controversy