Search results

restrictions of § 263 ZPO according to § 264 no. 2 ZPO, must meet the specificity requirements of § 253 (2) no. 2 var. 3 ZPO as they affect the subject matter

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

against article 3 of the decree of August 25, 2022 as it creates article R 2143-2 of the public health code, and, on the other hand, against article 2 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

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

violated Article 12(3) GDPR, Article 12(4) GDPR and Article 15(1) GDPR. Consequently, for violations of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12(1) GDPR, Article 12(3)

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

(pursuant to Article 95(1)(4) LCA and Article 58(2)(a) GDPR) for the controller because it seemed to fail to comply with Articles 6 and 24 GDPR. The DPA warned

follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has the power to impose administrative fines in accordance with Article 83. Depending

2019: 376, para 4.2.2, of 28 May 2019, ECLI: NL: HR: 2019: 793, para. 2.4.5. and of 19 July 2019, ECLI: NL: HR: 2019: 1278, r.o. 2.13.2.

website controller qualifies as controller (Article 4(7) GDPR) and Google LLC as processor (Article 4(8) GDPR) for data processing in connection with Google