Search results

Knuddels must also bear the costs of the proceedings (§§ 105, 107 OWiG 1.V.m. with § 464 (1), § 465 StPO). The procedural fee is 5% of the fine, but at

violation of the articles mentioned therein and, in particular, the following: v) Failure to comply with the obligation to appoint a data protection officer

Language(s): Finnish Original Source: Finlex (in FI) Initial Contributor: V

practice to see whether it is compliant with the SCHREMS II ruling and Chapter V of the GDPR. The decision is not yet published on the Council of State website

the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and inc v. AEPD and Mario Costeja ”C-131/12), according to which:“ There is a basic difference

see Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 6 October 2015, Schrems v DPC, C-362/14. 5 Compare mutatis mutandis the reasoning of the European Data

Ver- salis Spa v Commission, C-511/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:386, says: “ 94.Regarding, first of all, the reference to the Showa judgment Denko v Commission, cited

individual ( to that effect , Lingens v. Austria ; judgment of 18 July 2000 in vener v. Turkey ; judgment of 29 March 2001). Thoma v. Luxembourg, 29 March 2001

paragraph (3) shall not prejudice the rights and freedoms of other persons. V. On the right of presentation: The Federal Administrative Court is a court

Quadrature, A v Gewestelijke Stedenbouwkundige Ambtenaar van het Department ruimte Vlaanderen (Case C-24/19) [2021] CMLR 9 ("Gewestelijke"), and B v Latvijas

cases to date: Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini D.O.O [2015] EWHC 3380 (QB), [2016] 1 WLR 1414 (Sir Michael Tugendhat); Huda v Wells [2017] EWHC 2553

sentence 1 SGB V, insofar as this is necessary for the examinations, advice and expert opinions in accordance with sections 275 SGB V to 275d SGB V. According

be/publications/decision-quant-au-fond-n- 38-2021.pdf 8 CJEU, December 16, 2008, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-524/06, ECLI: EU: C: 2008: 724, para. 52. 9

personal data or third parties other than recipientsSecond plea for rectification v. request for erasureThird ground - permitted transfer of personal data to other

accredit the legitimacy for the treatment of the data of the claimant's clients. V Once the resolution proposal was formally notified, the respondent submitted

principles and guarantees set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679; V Article 58 (2) GDPR reads: ‘Each supervisory authority shall have all of the

received a copy of the letter. The guidance service for the Romani people/Taters v/ A was informed about the case in a letter from the tribunal on 2 May 2023

to the requirements of the European human right protection (see also VwGH v. 03.09.2015, Zl. Ro 2015/21/0032). According to the case law of the European

International B.V., established in the Netherlands, it was determined that the lead supervisory authority for Ridetech International B.V. would be the Dutch

established case law of the Chamber: U.v. 8.8.2019 - AN 14 K 19.00272 - BeckRS 2019, 30069, marginal number 24; U.v. 7.12.2020 - AN 14 K 18.02503 - BeckRS