Search results

without references to names. Moreover, (2) it included health data (Article 4(15) GDPR) as the newsletters were send to patients of the respected medical

according to Article 82 GDPR. The District Court rejected the claim of the data subject. It held that the controller did not violate Article 15(1) GDPR. It found

right of rectification of Article 16 GDPR and Article 14 of LOPDGDD, the national data protection law, the DPA stated that Article 12(4) LOPDGDD obliges the

indicated in point 3.3 of this decision. 4.3. Safety measures applied to the storage of traffic data. The conduct ascertained in point 3.4 of this decision

public interest in the field of public health in accordance with Article 9(2)(h) and (i) and (3); (d) for archiving purposes in the public interest, for the

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD typified in Article 83.5.a) of the RGPD and considered very serious, for the purposes of prescription, in Article 72.1

as Article 57 (1) (a), Article 58 (2) (e) and (i), Article 83 (1) - (3) and Article 83 (4) (a) in connection with Article 33 (1) and Article 34 (1), (2)

with Article 5 (1) (a) and Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR. Thus, the controller failed to comply with the accountability principle under Article 5 (2) GDPR. Second

Norway, and not the GDPR. The DPA does, however, refer to corresponding Articles in the GDPR: Articles 5(1)(b) and (c), as well as Article 17. Share blogs

typified in article 83.4 of the RGPD and is qualified as serious in article 73.1 g) of the LOPDPGDD for prescription purposes.III Article 58.Article 58.2 of

directly on the basis of the GDPR, not the register assessed on the basis of Article 30(1) of the GDPR. II.3. Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR 49. Above, the Disputes

proportionate and complies with the article 83 of the GDPR. The Litigation Chamber fully complied with article 83.1 of the GDPR and principle of proportionality

that the controller had not violated Article 45 GDPR nor any of the subsequent Articles from Chapter V of the GDPR. The AEPD took into account that the

infringement of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, afine of 75,000 euros (seventy-five thousand euros).SECOND: Under article 58.2.d)

violation of Article 12 GDPR ? Are the following practices an infringement on data subjects' information right as described in Article 12 GDPR ? Spreading

surveillance of Rognan center, cf. Article 6 of the Privacy Ordinance. 4.3. Assessment of the principle of legality in Article 5 (1) (a) The requirement that

of the GDPR. To 2): c) Article 50b (2) DSG 2000 (for the period prior to 25 May 2018) (d) Article 13(3) DSG (for the period from 25 May 2018) To 3): c) Article

general data protectionArticle 5 (1) (a), Article 5 (2), Article 12 (1) and (4) ofArticle 14, Article 15 and Article 21 (4).1.3. The Authority condemns

The Spanish DPA fined an insurance company €24,000 for violating Article 6(1) GDPR due to the processing of personal data without a legal basis. The company

complaint lodged under Article 77 of the GDPR, or proceedings based on Article 78(1) of the GDPR, is not precluded by the GDPR or any other provision of