Search results

therefore lack the implementation of such adequate safeguards and violate Article 32 GDPR. In this regard, the controller has not received any communications

basis in line with Article 13(1)(d) GDPR. The DPA stated that it would impose a fine on the controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, if latter does

02-16-2023 Response to request from OPEN HOST SL 02-17-2023 NIC Diligence 02-17-2023 Diligence opennemas 02-17-2023 Inf. planned actions. 04-11-2023 Startup

company, Iberdrola Clientes, S.A.U for infringing Article 21 GDPR, Article 48(1)(b) LGT, and Article 23(4) LOPDGDD. The initial proposed fine was €10000

as provided for in Article 46(1) of referred to Law. Finally, it is noted that in accordance with the provisions of Article 90.3 a) of the LPACAP, the

pursuant to Article 13 GDPR as well as to set a retention period for the personal data. Following an investigation conducted by the DPA on 17 January 2020

measures pursuant to Article 58 (2) (d) DSGVO were announced - this error would in any case have been remedied pursuant to Article 45 (1) no. 3 VwVfG by the fact

violation of article 6.1, typified in article 83.5 of the same legal text SECOND: APPOINT C.C.C. as instructor. and, as secretary, to D.D.D., indi- Whereas

paying profiles. II.4. Article 12(1),(2) and (3), Article 17, Article 19, Article 24(1) and Article 25(1) AVG 63. Article 12 (1) GDPR stipulates that the

controller thus also violated Article 14 GDPR. However, the DPA did not use any of their corrective powers as listed in Article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments

Claimant 3.- E / 11798/2019 B.B.B. - *** NIF.1 Claimant 4.- E / 05495/2020 C.C.C. - *** NIF.2 Claimant 5.- E / 06303/2020 D.D.D. - *** NIF.3 Claimant 6

stop. Therefore, Mr D lodged a second complaint alleging the ongoing violation of Article 6 GDPR. The AEPD finds the violation of Article 6 quite apparent

under Article 4(1) GDPR. These statistics even included health data which qualify as a special category of personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. The Datatilsynet

complaint - infringes Article 6(1) GDPR, by unlawfully processing the complainant's personal data, in relation to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, which governs the

that a controller is allowed to reject a request to access under Article 12(5)(b) GDPR as "excessive" if the request's sole purpose is to verify the validity

lawfulness, fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, and the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR. Additionally, the HDPA held that the

violation of article 28.2 typified in Article 83.4 a) GDPR. SIXTY THOUSAND EUROS (€60,000) for alleged violation of article 28.3 typified in Article 83.4 a)

Information about the storage period (Art. 15 Para. 1 lit. d GDPR) According to Art. 15 para. 1 lit.d GDPR, there is a right to information about the planned duration

to 22 (article 12 par. 2 GDPR), which include the right of access pursuant to article 15 GDPR and the right of access pursuant to article 17 GDPR right

writing (cf. paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 28 of the GDPR), verification of the requirements set out in article 28 of the GDPR it must be substantive and