Search results

The Privacy Board's assessment It follows from section 2 of the Personal Data Act and Article 2 (2) of the Privacy Ordinance that the Act and the regulation

decide in BE C-132/21 that the Article 78 GDPR remedy is a cost-free proxy for or alternative to a direct claim under Article 79. The mere fact that it is

the first sentence of recital 63 GDPR. Neither the wording of Article 12(5) GDPR nor that of Article 15(1) and (3) GDPR condition the provision (to access

comprehensible character, within the meaning of Article 12 of the GDPR, of the information provided for in Article 13 of the Regulation must be assessed. The

implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR).As the processing activity does not relate to a period of time during which the GDPR applied and, according to the

the GDPR within 1 month starting from the receipt of this decision; c)ordered the company comply with the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR, as

his access request, provided an incomplete dataset in English. Could Article 15 GDPR be exercised although the personal are expected to be already possessed

personal data by violating the working procedure leads to a violation of the GDPR? The ANSPDCP found that the controller sent (through its processor) to a

violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 14 GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR, and Article

for the submitting of all the reasons for which no sanction of the GDPR Article 58 par.2(a), (b), (e) & (i) should be imposed on Cyprus Police. Eventually

such processing to be legitimate on the basis of Article 9 (2) (B) GDPR in conjunction with Article 32 GDPR" (see note cited, p. 4) (see footnote cit., p

personal data under Article 15 GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the airline company had not complied with the right to access in Article 15 GDPR when it refused

infringement of Article 5.1 b) in conjunction with Article 6.4. AVG, on article 5.1 a) in conjunction with article 6.1. AVG and on article 5.1 c) GDPR has been

Commissioner held that CYTA violated articles 5 (1), 24 (1) and (2), 25 (1) and (2) and 32 of the GDPR and instructed CYTA to establish such security measures and

in line with Article 13 GDPR. On the DSB's request, the controller declared R*** Hotels GmbH as its representative under Article 27 GDPR and sent a reply

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

12(2), 21(2) and 21(4) GDPR. Moreover, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c), 5(2), 6(1), 12(2), 21(2) and 21(4) GDPR. The

law--> |GDPR_Article_1=Article 12(5) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 12 GDPR#5 |GDPR_Article_2=Article 15 GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 15 GDPR |GDPR_Article_3=Article

law--> |GDPR_Article_1=Article 12(5) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 12 GDPR#5 |GDPR_Article_2=Article 15 GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 15 GDPR |GDPR_Article_3=Article

processing of personal data (83 (2) (k) GDPR); the fact that basic personal identifiers are affected (83 (2) (g) GDPR); the intentionality or negligence