Search results

and (1)(e) of Article 6 GDPR. The violation of Article 2-ter of the Code is a direct consequence of the violation of Articles 5 and 6 GDPR. Finally, the

The Polish DPA held that a medical facility violated Articles 33(1) and 34(1) GDPR by not notifying the DPA and the data subject of a data breach after

information obligation provided for a / 'article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR. (...) Pursuant to article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR, the responsibility for processing

(hereinafter referred to as GDPR); and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance with the provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Agency Spanish

should have notified the DPA under Article 33(1) GDPR and the data subjects affected by the breach under Article 34(1) GDPR. Regarding the corrective measure

representation does not replace Article 9 (2) (a) and (c) consent of the data subject in accordance with Article 7. Article 7 (1) of the ECHR provides that

processing operations should not be disproportionate.5 disproportionate.5 16. Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR provides that personal data must be be "collected

concerned an alleged violation of the applicant's right of erasure (Article 17 GDPR). However, the conflicting information had been anonymized by the webmaster

relationship between Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code and Article 10 of the GDPR and the exceptional provisions of Articles 32 and 33 of the UAVG. The

contravene Articles 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR? The AEPD found that GRUP BC S.L violated Article 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

violated Article 33(1) GDPR. Moreover, it violated Article 34(1) GDPR since it did not provide the data subjects with the information listed in Article 33(3)(b)

of Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 14 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR, Article 28 GDPR, Article 32 GDPR and Article 33 GDPR, as well as of Article L. 34-5

Federal Law Gazette I No. 33/2013 VwGG § 33 valid from 03/01/2013 to 12/31/2013 last changed by BGBl. I No. 33/2013 VwGG § 33 valid from 07/01/2008 to 02/28/2013

Datatilsynet hold that the Municipality of Odense infringed Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR due to delayed answers to access requests. The Datatilsynet

various parts of Article 5 GDPR have been violated, namely Article 5 paragraph 1 sub b (purpose limitation) and Article 5 paragraph 1 sub f (integrity

according to Article 15 GDPR, which has been directly applicable since May 25, 2018 (Article 99 (2) GDPR). According to Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the person

consulted before processing, pursuant to Article 36 GDPR. Fourth, the Court noted that, pursuant to Article 10 GDPR and Article 31 Implementation Act, the IP addresses

requirements of Article 34(2) and Article 33(3) GDPR. The DPA expressed serious criticism to the controller for violating Article 32(1) GDPR. Moreover, it

the alert on the SIS system under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. The reason for the data subject invoking the GDPR is that Article 53(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1861

the breach, pursuant to the obligation expressed in Article 34 GDPR, in conjunction with Article 12 GDPR. Based on this assessment, the DPA issued an administrative