Search results

right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”) of Article 17 GDPR and Article 19 of Regulation 2018/1725. Under GDPR, such prolonged and unrestricted data retention

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned

Protection Committee, foreseen in theSection 3 of Chapter VIl of the GDPR, must, under the terms of paragraph 3 of article 68 of theregulation, be “composed of

ofcontroller (article 4.7 of the GDPR), the scope of the GDPR (article3.1 of the GDPR), the right to erasure (article 17 of the GDPR) and its powers (article 58.2of

account of the defendant (Article 6.1. f) GDPR). The other legal grounds included in Article 6.1. points a), b), c), d) and e) GDPR are in present case not

Region Lombardia violated Article 5(1)(a)(c) GDPR due to the dissemination not being necessary as well as Article 6(1)(c)(e) GDPR due to the absence of suitable

circumstances in relation to Article 5 and Articles 32 and 33 GDPR. First, there was the duration of the infringement under Article 83(2)(a) GDPR; second, there was

exceptions. The exception of article 32 sub c UAVG does not apply to her. Argument 3 3.33. BREIN also states that the exception of Article 32 sub d UAVG applies

the deadline set out in Article 33(1) GDPR. 6. Datatilsynet’s Assessment 6.1. Findings of an Infringement of Article 33(1) GDPR 6.1.1. Introduction As noted

violation of Article 5(1)(a), Article 12(1) and (2), Article 13(1)(c) and (2)(a) of the GDPR. II.4. Article 5 GDPR, Article 24 (1) GDPR and Article 25 (1) and

Paragraph 1 and 2 DSG, Article 5 Letters a and c GDPR as well as Article 6 Paragraph 1 Letters c and f GDPR, as well as Article 1 Paragraph 3 Z 1 ZaDiG 2018,

5. Failure to comply with Article 12 GDPR Information is considered easily accessible, within the meaning of Article 12 GDPR, if it is provided to the

principleof data minimization within the meaning of Article 5 (1) point c) GDPR.3. Breaches of the GDPR and the complainant's requests68. The Disputes Chamber

Protection Regulation) Article 5, paragraph 1, subparagraph c, Article 25, Article 58, paragraph 2, subparagraph d, and Article 87, Section 29, subsection

portrait right. The paintiff also saw a violation of Articles 33, 35 and 36 of the GDPR, which the defendant has not contested. The Court found that the

market participants. Specifically, these are Sections 17(3), 3(5) ApBetrO, 43 AMG, 11(1) sentence 1 no. 3, no. 7 and no. 11 HWG, and Section 14(2) no. 1 BerufsO

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

person concerned. ” 4.3.1- As regards respect for the principles of minimization and finality (article 5.1.c. and article 5.1.b of the GDPR) 24. In its capacity

municipality €409,768 (NOK 4,000,000) for breaches of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR after a serious ransomware attack led to highly

violation of the articles: -6.1 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR and article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001