Search results

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

02/2021 - 14/26 3. Motifs 3.1 Compétence de la Chambre de Résolution des Litiges (Article 2 AVG ; Article 4 WOG) 55. Conformément à l'article 2, paragraphe

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

2020 [CONFIDENTIAL] 3.3 Report obligation in connection with personal data on AP 3.3.1 Breach of Personal Data On the basis of Article 33, first paragraph

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On October 13, 2022, DIGI requests the

terminated, must be assessed in the light of Article 6 GDPR and not Article 10 GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR provides a sufficient basis for processing. The

section 3.3 >>.<< 3.3. Informed manifestation of willThe GDPR reinforces the requirement that consent must be informed. In accordance with theArticle 5 of

(articles 12 and 14 of the GDPR); A breach of his right of access (article 15 of the GDPR); A breach of Article 28 of the GDPR with regard to its status

for the infringement of the confidentiality principle specified at Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

refer to ‘consent’ in the light of GDPR and thus the condition for a valid consent (Article 7 GDPR) must be met. 3° This consent relates to the purpose

also be subject to the provisions of Article 6.1(e) DSGVO in conjunction with Article 6.1(b) DSGVO. Article 2, 28.2 no. 2 BayDSG without the consent of

that Article 36(1) GDPR provides for a duty to consult if two conditions are met. First, a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 GDPR must

held that a lawsuit under Article 79 GDPR regarding the alleged violation of Article 15 GDPR is indeed feasible. Article 79 GDPR is not limited to certain

for processing on 03/28/2019. Appealed, on appeal RR 354/2019 was resolved on 07/09/2019 being dismissed, highlights, in fact “On May 3, 2019, the affected

meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR and that the controller is requested to delete the data subject’s personal data as the requirements of Article 17(1)(c) GDPR and

violation of Article 15 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, as well as for the alleged infringement of Article 17 of the GDPR, typified in

C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/7 THIRD: Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, of April 27, 2016, General Data Protection

constituted health data under Article 9(1) and Article 4(15) GDPR but the transfer was nevertheless admissible pursuant to Article 9 GDPR, as the strict requirements

and the free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and

infringement of Article 32.1 of the GDPR typified as a serious infringement in Article 73 f) of the LOPDGDD and in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. For its part