Search results

according to Article 16 GDPR, because the certificate is not contained in a filing system or automated storage and therefore, pursuant to Article 2 GDPR, outside

decision stated: - Pursuant to Article 100, §1, 9 WOG, to order processing in accordance with with Articles 5.1.f, 5.2, 24 and 32 GDPR, in which in particular

disclosing personal data from a surveillance footage, thus breaching Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6. The company appealed to the Norwegian Privacy Appeals Board

Protection Act) § 22. The provisions of Articles 13(1) to (3), Article 14(1), Article 15 and Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation shall not apply

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

with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 33 paragraph. 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 of the Regulation

requests for information according to Article 15(1) GDPR. The ‘Business secrecy’ exception only applied to Article 15(4) GDPR, where a data subject would request

the Spanish Agency of Data Protection, as laid down in Article 56(2) inin relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of European Parliament

behalf of the controller, violating Article 27(4) GDPR. The DPA confirmed that the controller violated Article 35 GDPR for not having carried out a DPIA

regulation of the Guarantor n. 1/2000; RAPPORTEUR prof. Pasquale Stanzione; WHEREAS 1. The inspection activity towards the company. 1.1. As part of a control activity

the treatment could be article 6.1 b) or the 6.1 c), has chosen to request the consent of its employees as indicated in article 6.1 a) and 9.2 a) of the

Considerations Legal framework 1. The relevant laws and regulations are set out in an appendix. This forms part of the ruling. Introduction 1.1. [appellant] is involved

interest. Based on Article 2 (1) of the GDPR, the GDPR must be applied to the data management in this case. GDPR Article 4, point 1: "personal data": for

concerns the following in this appeal. 3.1.1. [the employee] , born on [date of birth] 1964, was employed on 1 September 1986 joined Trigion's legal predecessor

violation of Article 35 GDPR. Thus, the DPA fined the university a total of €200,000 for the violation of Articles. 5(1)(a), (c) and (e), 6, 9, 13, 25, 35, 44 and

5. Paragraph 1 Article 41, paragraphs 1 and 3 Article 46 Act no. 90/2018, cf. point e, paragraph 1 Article 58, paragraphs 1 and 5 Article 83 of regulation

with Article 110(1) of the Italian Privacy Code. The Garante further approved the safeguards foreseen by the hospital in line with Article 89 GDPR. However

consultation. of the Guarantor pursuant to article 36 of the Regulation "(article 110 of the Code, article 9, paragraph 2, letter j) and par. 4 of the

the scope of Article 22 and therefore Article 15(1)(h) applies. They also claimed to have a right to data portability under Article 20(1) GDPR and that information

hereinafter: GDPR), OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, p. 1.: Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter c, Article 6, Article 12 Paragraph 3, Article 51 Paragraph 1, Article