Search results

judgment - see 6 Ob 63/21i (in German). On 03.09.2021, the Austrian Federal Administrative Court also stayed a procedure on the same issue - see W211 2230221-1

aim at processing in accordance with the provisions of the DPA (see Martini in Paal/Pauly, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung [2017], Art. 32 para. 28). This security

rules of the GDPR and the principles anchored therein have not been violated (see the decision of October 31, 2018, GZ DSB-D123.076 / 0003-DSB / 2018). According

so that Section 1 (1) DSG does not apply at all. But even if one were to see an application of § 1 DSG, the complaint would not be successful: The (simple

later than within one month, see Kühling / Buchner / Bäcker, 3rd edition 2020, GDPR Art. 14 marginal no. 33; Paal / Pauly / Paal / Hennemann, 3rd edition

specific (see 1.). The defendant's new submission, which she made in the grounds of appeal, must be taken into account in this respect (see 2.). The fact

legal remedies to the notification in the final decision of October 5, 2020 (see Art. 77 Para. 2 DS- GMO). Paragraph 19 b) It is disputed whether a further

one of the objectives listed in a taxonomy and meet certain requirements (see only Haidinger in Knyrim, DatKomm, Art 23 Vorheriger SuchbegriffDSGVONächster

lawfulness of a 10 year storage period is not relevant for the case at hand (see margin number 21 of the judgment:"In the present case - as already stated

weighed up. See Paal, in: Paal / Pauly (ed.), General Data Protection Regulation / Federal Data Protection Act, 2nd edition 2018, Art. 23 marg. 31; see also Peuker

Art 58 (2) GDPR (see Art 83 GDPR, which in its (3) and (4) summarises the possible infringements in connection with data processing; see also Art 83(3) GDPR

the costs are to be decided in this respect in accordance with § 91a ZPO (see 3. below). 2. The appeal is unfounded. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim

should be possible with a view to the legitimate enforcement of rights. (see Paal/Pauly GDPR on Art. 9 Rn 37) Necessity for the purpose only exists if the task

statement by the defendant's legal representative dated 18 October 2018 (see sheets 19 - 21 of the Federal Law Gazette) in the proceedings mentioned at

material, which had not been further processed, must enable the data subject to see the form in which all personal data concerning him or her were held by the

- albeit regularly rather minor - breach of data protection (see Körffer, in: Paal/Pauly, DS-GVO/BDSG, 2nd edition 2018, Art. 58, marginal 18; Selmayr

information in connection with journalistic activities on the other hand (see only ECJ C-73/07, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, ECLI:EU:C:2008:727

employment and sick leave are stored, which all employees of the station could see. In particular, the state commissioner considered the disclosure of health

assessments, provided that it is information “about” the person in question . "(See the judgment of the ECJ of December 20, 2017, C-434/16 [Nowak]). These considerations

everything to be done to correct the breach of duty and had not been able to see that this had not been directly implemented by the credit agency. According