Search results

according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, is data personnel and their protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

obligation by providing the information required under Art. 14 (1) – (3) of the GDPR only in relation to the persons whose e-mail addresses it had at its

portability; (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or on Article 9, (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a),

information obligation provided for a / 'article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR. (...) Pursuant to article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR, the responsibility for processing

All this is in violation of Article 22 GDPR. The requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity have also not been met. 3.3. Furthermore, prior to the

violation of article 21 of the LSSICE, classified as serious in article 38.3.d) and c) of said rule, for the alleged infringement of article 48.1.b) of the

implement 1See e.g. PVN 2019-09 2FOR-2018-07-02-1107. 3 Prop. 56 LS (2017-2018), point 31.3.3.3 4controlling measures in their business. Regulations on

statutory legal obligation as stipulated under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, in this case prescribed by Article 229 of the Act on Road Traffic Safety. The Court

costs at law. 3.3. In the first instance, [the employee] put forward a substantiated defense seeking the rejection of Trigion's requests. 3.3.1. In the event

processing of in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) (a), and this is not based on any other legal basis; (c) the data subject opposes the

at least the information and measures referred to in article 33, paragraph 3, points b), c) and d). 3. The communication to the data subject referred to

Therefore the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) and (2), Article 6(1), Article 12(1), Article 13(1)(b) and (c) GDPR. The DPA imposed a fine of €50.000

The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. Article 32 of the RGPD "Security of treatment", establishes that: "1

the context of the implementation of Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 33. 33. The Litigation Chamber refers in this

requirements of Article 13 of the Regulation. C. On the breach relating to cookies 69. Article 82 of the Data Protection Act (Article 32.II in a wording

provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the RGPD; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

AEPD held that the telecoms company 's actions were a breach of Article 6(1) GDPR. Article 6(1) does not apply here because they failed to prove that they

confidentiality established by Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Was there a personal data breach? The AEPD considered that there was an infringement of Article 5(1)(f), as there

information pursuant to Article 15 (1) of the GDPR relates to "personal data relating to an individual" pursuant to Article 4 No. 1 of the GDPR. In addition, the

controller had infringed Article 6(1) GDPR, in addition to violating the principle of data minimisation in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. Concerning the second issue