Search results

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

show_context_help(h) { newWindow = window.open(h,"Help", "menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,resizable=1,width=700, height=500"); } </SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><STYLE

par. 1, letter a) and c); 6, par. 1, letter c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, letter b); 9, par. 1, 2, 4, of the Regulation; Articles 2-ter, par. 1 and 3

basis under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, the Court found that the data subject cannot exercise his right to object pursuant to Article 21(1) GDPR. Secondly, the

be erased and thus also violates Article 17.1(c) AVG. 3.2. With regard to the infringement of Article 6.1 and Article 21.4 of the AVG 29. In its statement

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

itself, that the information and measures mentioned in Article 33(1)(b) to Article 33(1)(d) GDPR must also be communicated to the data subject. However

health data, recorded in copies Article 6 (1) of the GDPR and, in the case of health data, Article 9 of the GDPR. Article 1 (1); (3) did not provide clear

breached Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Therefore, the DPA handed down a 'call to order' against the joint controllers for breaching Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, and no

private doctor for violating Article 32 GDPR by making his patients' health data freely accessible on the web, and Article 33 GDPR by not notifying the DPA

contrary to the plaintiff's view - does not follow from Art. 82 (1) GDPR. Art. 82 (1) GDPR would probably be directly applicable in national law. The defendant

to the Privacy Ordinance, Article 6, No. 1, letter f, as the relevant valid basis for processing, as well as Article 21, No. 1 on the data subject's right

processing personal data in violation of Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and Article 32(1) GDPR. The DPA also requested the controller

meet the requirement of accuracy or comprehensibility of Article 12, paragraph 1, sentence 1 GDPR. [6]                                                  

scientific research purposes pursuant to Article 9(2)(j) GDPR, provided that appropriate safeguards under Article 89(1) GDPR are in place. These safeguards (e

it had found violations of Articles 5(1)(a)(c)(e), 13, 22(3), 25, 30(1)(c)(f)(g), 32, 35, 37(7), and 88 of the GDPR. In defensive briefs, UK Roofoods contended

constitute a valid legal basis in line with Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, Article 6(2) and (3) GDPR nor with Article 9(2)(g) GDPR. Making reference to case law of the

of articles 38.1, 38.3, 39.1 a) and 39.1 b) of the GDPR; - to issue an injunction against Company A to comply with Article 38.1 of the GDPR, within four

subjects required by Article 12.2. of the GDPR. 8.1.3. As for the breach of the principle of minimization (article 5.1 c) of the GDPR) 8.1.3.1. In view of the

assessment pursuant to Article 35 of the GDPR and, depending on the outcome, also have to consult the AP beforehand (Article 36 of the GDPR). In addition, as