Search results

fined €380,000 for violating Articles 6(1), 13(1) and (2), and 25(1) and (2) and 32(1)(a) and (d) GDPR. A sports betting agency, acting as the controller,

databases made available by the CNAM. 2.2.2. Nature of personal data 2.2.2.1. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR, the data processed must be relevant

preference to use English, which justifies the data export in English (Article 12(1) GDPR). The bank – the controller- notified its client that his account

Protection Regulation (2016/679) Article 12 (4), Article 17 (3), Article 21 (2) and (3), Article 25 (2), Article 58 (2) (b) Section 2 of the Health Care Professional

ordinary courts (Article 34 GG, Article 40(2) VwGO). Moreover, the Court considered the reference to Article 79(2) GDPR from Article 82(6) GDPR, and the fact

mandatory by article 13.2.a) of the GDPR. 2.2 Regarding the exercise of their rights by the persons concerned 67 53. In the context of objective 2, the head

regard to article 83.2 (k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with Article 83(2)(k) of

requirements of Article 9 GDPR. In the DSB held that the processing violated Articles 5, 6 and 9 GDPR: Consent under Articles 6(1)(a), 7 and 9(2)(a) GDPR cannot

protected by article 5 par. 1 item a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR and b) directs a reprimand, according to article 58 par. 2 b) GDPR, to the complained

confidentiality as laid down in Article 5(1)(d) and (f) GDPR read in conjunction with the principle of accountability according to Article 5(2) GDPR. The ANSPDCP imposed

that the action was intentional (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR), and that the personal data are sensitive (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). Share your comments here! Share

to the GDPR, imposed a fine in the amount of € 10.000 and ordered Cavauto srl. to communicate the proposed changes in view of compliance with GDPR. The Italian

data to other parties and therefore violates Article 14 GDPR. The Court also stated that Article 77 GDPR allows data subjects to contact the data protection

rectification under Article 16 GDPR, the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR, and the right to restriction of processing under Article 18 GDPR. The court therefore

data. Hence, it considered Article 32(1)(a), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(d) GDPR to be breached. Pursuant to Article 82(2) GDPR, the DPA took several aggravating

reprimand in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR for these established violations. The DPA issued an order, as per Article 15(4)(b) of the Greek Law 4624/2019

compliance with Article 13 GDPR. The controller notified the DPA that the legal basis used for the security cameras is Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, i.e. legitimate

initiated by the above Registry, (1) and (2) and Article 13.II.The Authority instructs the Obliged Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (d) of the General Data Protection

comply with GDPR Article 12 (1) and GDPR Article 5 (2) of the provisions of paragraph 2, and he did not even mention the Data Subject 2. Based on GDPR Article

basis of the processing operation (Article 14(1)(c) GDPR) and the recipients of the personal data (Article 14(1) and (2) GDPR). As such, Datatilsynet found