Search results

provided for in Article 56(1), read in conjunction with Article 56(2), read in conjunction with Article 56(3), read in conjunction with Article 56(4), read

United Kingdom Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 9(2) GDPR Article 35(3) GDPR Article 35(7) GDPR Section 8 Data Protection Act

considered appropriate in accordance with Article 31(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to identify

million) kroner for violation of Article 44 of the data protection regulation. 1 Description of the supervisory matter 1.1 The processing The Swedish Privacy

competent to decide, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(2) in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

accordance with Article 5.1.a) j° Article 6.1 of the GDPR, any processing of personal data have a legal basis. Article 6.1 of the GDPR stipulates that

indiscriminate monitoring of employees in violation of Articles 5 (1)(a) and (c), 6, 9,13, 88, and 35 GDPR. An employee of the Municipality of Bolzano alleged that

Article 35 UAVG implements Article 79 GDPR, and provides: "1. If the decision on a request as referred to in Article 34 has been taken by a body other than

Sections 1004 analogously, Section 823 (1) and (2) BGB in conjunction with Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR. Claims under data protection law could

would have been required under Article 28 GDPR. Furthermore, no data protection impact assessment according to Article 35 GDPR was carried out, with which

be provided in accordance with Article 12 GDPR and contain all the elements set out in Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR. Fourthly, on the data storage

controller stated that participants were asked for consent, pursuant to article 6(1)(a) GDPR, and that they were given an alternative accreditation option. The

Constable West Midlands Police (WMP), for violating Articles 34(3), 38(1)(3), 40 and 57(1)(2) of the UK Data Protection Act (DPA). ICO also recommended that

from Article 35 GDPR, which is an article directed at controllers and uses it as a basis for evaluating the admissibility of complaints. Article 35 GDPR

protection impact assessment prior to the use of the drones, as provided in Article 35 GDPR. In addition, the IP clarified that the Civil Aviation Agency of the

5- □ 1-i; -J L ..J Brussels-2020 Court of Appeal / AR / 1333 p. 3 breach of articles 5.1.a} and 5.1.b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the GDPR read

installed by a city (Article 9(2)(g) GDPR), no provision on the necessity of the processing with regard to a health policy (Article 9(2)(g) GDPR), and the city

once all the persona data mentioned by virtue of Article 15(1) GDPR, in the lights of Recital (63) GDPR. Thus, the authority ruled that the lack of a complete

applicable to the controller, including Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR. As a matter of fact, Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR set general principles and conditions of processing

of the GDPR: art. 5.1 a, 12.1, 13, 14, 6, 7, 5.1.c in conjunction with 25, 5.2, 28.3, 31, 37 and 38 AVG. 63. With regard to Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR, the defendant