Search results

lays down the provisions as stated in Article 95, § 2. This article provides in particular in the aforementioned § 2: "In the cases mentioned in §n1, 4 to

fine based on article 58 paragraph 2 subsection i of the GDPR is appropriate. 27. For Zitatel there is a violation of Article 32 of the GDPR in seven (7)

requirements of sentences 1 and 2 are met, Section 2 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 and Paragraph 2, Section 4 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 No. 2 and Section 12 do not apply;

follow from Art. 82 (6) in conjunction with Art. 79 (2) GDPR. Art. 82 (6) GDPR refers to Art. 79 (2) GDPR with regard to responsibility. According to this

to or instead of the measures referred to in Article 58(2)(a) to (h) and (j) [..)', Article 83(2) of the GDPR recognizes the power of the national supervisory

provider cannot be considered a processor as per Article 4(7) GDPR, Article 4(8) GDPR, and Article 28(3) GDPR. Therefore, the service provider acted as a data

provided for in Article 15(1) GDPR, which was kept by the Higher Administrative Court. The Court denied the request. Does Article 15 GDPR apply to hand written

legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR and in violation of transparency obligations in the privacy policy under Article 5(1)(a) and 13 GDPR. The DPA in the

without a legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR and for not adhering to the accountability principle as per Article 5(2) GDPR, cf. Article 24. The DPA also requires

for several persons involved. As such, no violation of Article 12(2)n Article 17(1) and Article 24. However, the private employment agency is reprimanded

defendant is Article 159(2)(4) of the Polish Telecommunications Law, in conjunction with Article 30, Article 32(2), Article 42(1) and Article 45(1) of the

the GDPR under Article 2(2)(a) GDPR. Furthermore, the court extensively discussed the material scope of application according to Article 2(1) GDPR. At

confidentiality of data pursuant to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and violated the principle of privacy by default and by design (Article 24 GDPR). The controller was aware

compliance of the provision in Article 25h, paragraph 2 of the LPPD with Article 10 ECHR, Article 19 of the UDHR and Article 19 of the ICCPR . Considers,

content: [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted]

the basis of article 6.1 e) GDPR read together with articles 5.2 GDPR and 24.1 GDPR. 3) Violation of Articles 12.1, 12.6, 13.1 and 13.2 GDPR: the Inspection

should rely on one of the legal basis under Article 6 and 9 GDPR. Specifically, Articles 9(2)(h) and 9(3) GDPR allow for processing of sensitive data for

also found, on the basis of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR, that the Respondent had infringed Article 13(1) to (2) of the GDPR by failing to provide adequate

controller and processor in the GDPR”, adopted on July 7, 2021. 6 GDPR, Art. 12. 7GDPR, Art. 12.2 and 12.3. 8 GDPR, Art. 12.3. 9 GDPR, art. 12.3. Decision 172/2022

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR; 2. Did not provide the complainant with enough information prior to the processing, in violation of Article 13 GDPR; 3. Processed