Search results

58(2)(f) GDPR, the Italian DPA imposed a temporary limitation on processing of an AI-powered ChatBot. The privacy policy did not clarify which legal basis had

The CJEU held that the mandatory disclosure, in the context of an online transparency publication, of personal information concerning a public officer

€150,000 for sending unsolicited advertising messages, for not responding to an access request and for not facilitating the objection to processing of personal

this body may be considered as an administrative offense in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR, classified as an infraction in its article 83.5

July 29, 2022, an explanation of what measures the data protection officer has taken as a result of the decision, unless it applies for an amendment to this

of an illegal act will require the prior duty of information, which may be understood to have been fulfilled when the placed in a visible place an informative

An association that disclosed personal data of one of its members in a Whatsapp group was fined €3,000 for violating Articles 5(1)(f) and 32 GDPR. The

result information that is accompanied by an objectively perceptible factual error and which therefore gives an incorrect, incomplete or misleading picture

and that the term remains an autonomous concept of EU law. That means that it is not decisive if an offence is classified as an administrative offence in

they are the owner of the property being, therefore, an area of public access, which constitutes an access not authorized to said data. This document was

process, provided in particular as an ordinary way of dealing with the oral hearing of cases from May 30 to July 31, as an alternative to the purely paper-based

controller to reply to a data subject's request to delete personal data, to an objection of processing of data for marketing purposes, transfer to third

golf company AE’ (hereinafter ‘Glyfada GAAR’) which includes an event with the complainant and an employee of the company.This request was repeated on...,

not support as an interpretation that the legislator intended to extend the concept of "insured party" to apply also to the applicant of an insurance before

a credit score is a decision for the purposes of Article 22(1) GDPR, where an action taken by a third party ‘draws strongly’ from it. A data subject was

on ...2019 at ...2019 and time ... an automated telephone call from the number ..., to which he answered and heard an audio message that he had won 850

circumstances. The Belgian DPA brought an action before Court of First Instance of Brussels, Belgium on 11 September 2015, seeking an injunction against Facebook

provide for an observation period of at least five years with regard to the estimation of risk parameters. In contrast, data subjects have an interest in

certificate issued for ISO 27001 Certification (reflecting the result of an audit by an external auditor)." C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd

controller's premises. The controller argued that the DPA should have requested an explanation from the other company as well, because the data subject was not