Search results

that the article’s publication was in violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, when read in line with Article 85 GDPR. Article 5(1)(c) outlines

comply with Article 5(2) GDPR. The DPA determined that the controller violated Article 15 GDPR. The DPA stated that Article 15(1)(c) GDPR must be interpreted

provided for in Article 2, h) of Directive 95/46/EC. In particular, under these new requirements, article 4, paragraph 11 of the GDPR requires that the

without a legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR, and special category personal data without a valid exemption from the prohibition in Article 9(1) GDPR. Grindr

(art. 5.1 a) GDPR); the purpose limitation principle (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and the principle of minimum data processing (Article 5.1 c) GDPR) and this

has not violated the article 15 of the GDPR, infringement typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR. IV. Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR "Security of treatment"

sanction under Article 83 GDPR and therefore imposed a €2,000 fine for breaching Articles 12(3) and 12(4) in conjunction with Article 17(1) GDPR, as well as

the Court held that a controller will be held liable for a breach committed by a processor of paragraphs 4 to 6 of Article 83 GDPR, intentionally or negligently

monetary penalty. Article 83(2) GDPR 56. The Commissioner has considered the factors set out in Article 83(2) GDPR in deciding whether to impose a penalty and

in Article 6 of the GDPR. The cases that allow the processing of personal data to be considered lawful are listed in Article 6.1 of the GDPR. GDPR: 1.

NANDIVALE, S.L., with NIF B66070012, for a violation of the Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, a fine of 10,000 € (ten thousand euros)

processor (article 83.2 e) of the GDPR. The assessment carried out by the Agency only takes into account the violations imposed for violation of article 6.1 of

with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 32.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4, a) of the GDPR, a fine of €2,000 (two a thousand euros). THIRD:

violated Article 12, in conjunction with Article 17 GDPR. The DPA considered the elements of Article 83(2) GDPR and determined that this was a minor infringement

responsibility – article 5.2. of the GDPR) and to implement all the measures necessary for this purpose (Article 24 of the GDPR). 26. Pursuant to Article 5.1.a) of

of the GDPR by the controller, the DPA issued a fine of €12.100 in accordance with Article 83(4) GDPR, Article 83(5) GDPR and Article 83(6) GDPR. Both the

acted in breach of Article 12(2) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that IMY has the

within the meaning of Article 4 (8) GDPR. Consequently, Article 28 (3) GDPR does not apply application. 86. With regard to Article 31 GDPR, the defendant states

did not react either. GDPR applicable? (Article 3(2) GDPR) The DPA held that the GDPR was applicable pursuant of Article 3(2) GDPR. Because the controller

follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has the power to impose administrative fines in accordance with Article 83. Depending