Search results

interfering with court decisions. The DPA found a breach of Article 33 GDPR and Article 34(1) and (2) GDPR resulting in a fine of €2,324. Share your comments here

notified in accordance with Article 34 GDPR. Therefore, the DPA found that the controller violated Article 33(1) and Article 34(1) GDPR and imposed a fine of

processing Chain of standards: GDPR Art. 5 Paragraph 1 Letter f Guiding principle: Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter f of the GDPR supplements the aspect of confidentiality

supervisory authority (i.e. Article 33 (1 ) of the GDPR) and to notify the data subjects of breach of (Article 34 (1-2) of the GDPR), it would be necessary

the GDPR and DPA 2018. They are obliged by Article 5(2) of the GDPR to adhere to the data processing principle set out in Article 5(1). 8. Article 5(1)(f)

established by Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Was there a personal data breach? The AEPD considered that there was an infringement of Article 5(1)(f), as there

in his e-mail dated 5 July 2019. By doing so, the data subject invokes his right under Article 17 of the AVG. 27. Pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) AVG, the data

meaning of Article 4 No. 7 GDPR. However, the defendant cannot be accused of violating an obligation to provide information under Art. 15, 12 GDPR. Paragraph

The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. Article 32 of the RGPD "Security of treatment", establishes that: "1

observations. Firstly, the right to be forgotten can be found in Article 17 GDPR and Article 93 of the LOPDGDD, the Spanish data protection law. It establishes

purposes in Article 73, sections j), k) and p) of the LOPDGDD, for violation of article 44 of the RGPD typified in accordance with article 83.5.c) of the

set out in Articles 5(1)(f) and 9 GDPR. Pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83(5) GDPR, the DPA issued an administrative sanction of €5,000. Considering that

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

Therefore the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) and (2), Article 6(1), Article 12(1), Article 13(1)(b) and (c) GDPR. The DPA imposed a fine of €50.000

right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”) of Article 17 GDPR and Article 19 of Regulation 2018/1725. Under GDPR, such prolonged and unrestricted data retention

the GDPR introduces a prohibition on their processing (Article 9(1) GDPR), while allowing for explicit and limitative exceptions (Article 9(2) GDPR). In

the GDPR, [applicants] suffered immaterial damage estimated at € 750 per applicant. Uber must compensate for that damage under Article 82 GDPR. 3.5. Uber

and Section 2 of the German Civil Code in conjunction with Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR, the plaintiff is also not entitled to an injunctive relief

of minimum data processing (Article 5.1. c) GDPR). 33. In order to check whether the third condition of Article 6.1 f) GDPR - the so-called "Balancing test"

this respect. Hence, the controller argued that it did not violate Article 33(1) GDPR. The DPA held that the data breach entailed a risk of violating the