Search results

artikel 100, §1, 2° WOG de buitenvervolgingstelling bevelen, of de klacht seponeren overeenkomstig artikel 95, §1, 1° of artikel 100, §1, 1° WOG (naargelang

5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 5 sec. 2, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. b, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 38 sec. 1, art. 39 sec. 1 lit. b and

the performance of a contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) and for legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Article 6(1)(b) GDPR In its original draft decision

violated Article 25(1) GDPR by failing to take measures designed to implement the accuracy principle in the database, and Articles 5(2) and 24(1) GDPR by failing

violation of article 17 in combination with article 21 par. 3 and article 12 paragraph 3 of the GDPR and article 25 paragraph 1 of the GDPR. For its judgment

This amounted to a violation of Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d) GDPR, Article 32(2) GDPR. Consequently, the DPA fined the

violating Article 32(4) jo Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR (security of processing). In addition, a fine of €5,000 for violating Article 25(1) GDPR (data protection

laid down in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In this context, the DPA referred to Article 25(1) GDPR (data protection by design) and Recital 78 GDPR. As a result

risk analysis. Therefore, the DPC found a violation of Article 25(1), 25(2), 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(f) GDPR, ordered Meta to comply with the provisions and imposed

thereby violating Article 13(2) GDPR. The investigated controllers did not comply with the storage limitation principle under Article 5(1) GDPR because the data

data free of charge in light of the principle of privacy by design (Article 25(1) GDPR). According to this principle, data protection issues should be taken

processing under Article 9 GDPR. Second, the HDPA also found a violation of the principle of lawfulness under Article 5(1a) of the GDPR. It found that the

accordance with Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1. 3.2. Article 25 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 25 (1) of the Data

data constituted a breach of Articles 5(1)(f) and 32 GDPR. Additionally, the controller violated Article 25(1) GDPR because it failed to implement a secure

that in accordance with Article 1 7 in in conjunction with Article 21 (3) and Article 12 (3) of the GIPA and Article 25 par. 1 of the GCP meet the conditions

city council had violated Article 13 GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR. However, since the deficiencies regarding Article 13 GDPR were corrected before the end

violation of: 1. Article 5.1.f) and 5.2 of the GDPR, Article 24.1 of the GDPR, Article 25.1 of the GDPR and Articles 32.1 and 32.2 GDPR; 2. Articles 35.1, 35.2

information obligations under Article 5(1)(a), Article 6(1), Article 12, Article 13, Article 24(1), Article 25(1) and Article 25(2). Share your comments here

controllers have violated Article 5(1)(a), Article 6(1), Article 13, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 25, Article 32, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Articles 44 and

(2) GDPR; b. a breach of Article 12(1) and (6) GDPR, Article 13(1) and (2) GDPR and Article 14(1) and (2) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and