Search results

held that “A synopsis of the provisions of Article 9(1)(i) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 3(1)(1), (1a) and (2) of the EpiG shows that the competent

breach of Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD held that the facts complained of involving the violation by the City Council of the provisions of Article 13 of the

receipts is framed in the definition of personal data contained in Article 4(1) of the GDPR because they contain “information relating to an identified or

articles 5.1.,b) juncto 24.1 and 9.2.a) juncto 7.3 of the RGPD; - that it is not necessary to pronounce one of the measures provided for in Article 100, §1 of

principle, namely the breaches of articles 5-1-c), 5 -1 e), 13, 32 and 35-1 of the GDPR; no breach of Article 6 of the GDPR and of Directive 2002/58 / EC of the

determines the purposes and means of the processing". According to Article 26(1) of the GDPR, "where two or more controllers jointly determine the purposes

Sentence 1, Section 102 Paragraph 1 BetrVG, Section 17 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 KSchG) on the consultation (e.g. Section 90 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1, Section

cites Articles 5(1)(b) and (e), 9(2)(j), 89(1) GDPR and Section 7(1)(1) and (2)(1) GDPR. In particular, it follows from Article 9(2)(j) GDPR that the processing

too sick to work. 1 2See, among other things, article 4 paragraph 1 SUWI and the ZBO register of the Dutch central government. See article 2 paragraph 2 SUWI

issued an opinion as foreseen under Article 58(3) GDPR on the issue of the health data sharing under Article 9 GDPR in the employer - employee context.

lawfulness: (1) the consent of the 10 complainant (article 6.1 a) of the GDPR combined with article 7 of the GDPR), (2) article 6.1 c) of the GDPR in that the

specified in the same Article 83." 112. Under Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20(III) of the Data Protection Act: "1. Each supervisory authority

comply with section 5.1(b) of the MDR, and for failure to comply with section 5.1(a) of the MDR. and 5.1(b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the MDR

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

Klarna violate Article 15 of the GDPR? The DPA considered that Klarna failed to process the request within the timeframe required by Article 12(3) and without

specific categories of information in Article 8 (1) and (5) of Directive 95/46 or in Article 9 (1), Article 10 (1) and Article 10 of Regulation 2016/679, the

minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and contrary to the obligation to obtain the freely given consent of the data subject under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, when refusal

connection with the violation of article/and 5.1. c); 6.1.; 13.1. (c);13.1(e) and13.2(a)AVG: r PAGE 01-00001582885-0002-0033-01- □1-� r L _JCourt of Appeal Brussels

and 60 of the GDPR does not apply established by the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 para. 1, 2 para. 1 and 3 para.

lawfulness, the Litigation Chamber concludes that Article 5.1.a. of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 6 of the GDPR have not been complied with with regard to