Search results

manner in accordance with Article 15 GDPR. A mere loss of control can also constitute damage within the meaning of Article 82 (1) GDPR due to the lack of a

CPDP issued NRA an order under Article 58(2)(d) supra Article 57(1)(a) and Article 83(2)(a), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the GDPR for undertaking suitable technical

positively to the request of the Complainant in accordance with Article 12(2) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. The HDPA imposed an administrative fine of EUR 20,000 on

and mitigate its effects (article 83.2.f, of the RGPD) -Basic personal identifiers (name, surname, address, D.N.I.) (article 83.2 g). Therefore, in accordance

Protection Regulation (Article 83 (2) (e) of the General Data Protection Regulation). circumstances within the meaning of Article 2 (2) (b), (f), (g), (h)

4 and article 15 of the GDPR (right of access), for reasons set out below. Furthermore, in accordance with article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and article 95, §

commercial messages. Consequently, pursuant to its powers under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to take technical and organizational

status, without appropriate legal grounds, as required by art. 6 GDPR and art 2-ter and 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code, and going against the principles

within a specified period - Article 58. 2 d)-. In accordance with Article 83(2) of the RGPD, the measure provided for in Article 58(2)(d) of that Regulation

intervention Article 58 (2) (i) and Article 83 (2) state that the IMY has the power to impose administrative penalty fees in accordance with Article 83. the

(2) of the Regulation. 1 does not apply. Article 9 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation Article 2 (2) (h) states that the prohibition on the processing

13(1)(c) and 13(1)(e) GDPR constitutes an infringement of GDPR rights “as a result of the processing” under Article 80(2) GDPR. First of all, the court pointed

took place. Therefore, as per Article 58 (2) (b), DPA issued a reprimand to the controller as per and, as per Article 58 (2) (d), ordered the controller

PCR (SARS_CoV-2) test is to be qualified as a health data pursuant to Article(4)(15) GDPR and that the scope of protection of Article 9(2) must be taken

Finnish DPA found a retail chain to have breached Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR for its lengthy storage of purchase behaviour

limitation under Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. 1(b) and the obligation (principle) of accountability under Article 5(1)(b). 2 of the GDPR, that is to say

Finnish DPA found a healthcare provider to have breached Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR for not implementing appropriate technical and organisational

reasoned in accordance with Article 4(24) GDPR and, after conducting its own assessment of the factors under Article 83(2) GDPR, found that the proposed fine

processor €30,000 under Article 58(2) GDPR and Article 83(4) GDPR for the breach of Article 32(2), Article 32(4) GDPR and Article 28(3) GDPR. As for the controller

data within the meaning of Article 4(2) in the course of proceedings under both Articles 77 and 78 of the GDPR. Article 4(2) refers to disclosure as a