Search results

controller was in breach of Article 38(1) GDPR at the time of the investigation. Regarding the breach of Article 39(1)(b) GDPR, the CNPD concurred with the

of public space respect Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR? The AEPD held that the installation of a video surveillance system under Article 22 LOPDGDD must always

reply. The AKI reminded the defendant of its obligation under Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR to inform the data subject in a concise, clear, comprehensible

fact that the processing of the controller relied on Article (6)(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(c) GDPR as legal basis affects the holding of the DPA since

COMMUNITY OF OWNERS RRR, withNIF *** NIF. 1 , for a violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, in relation to ArticleC / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd

infringement of the right to objection specified at Article 21 GDPR in connection with Article 48(1)(b) of the Spanish Telecommunications General Law, as

accordance with Article 5 (1) (c) of the General Data Protection Regulation; and (3) whether the controller should be ordered in accordance with Article 58 (2)

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR? AEPD considered that the documentation provided offers evidence that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) of the GDPR, by processing

the presumed infringement of article 5.1 b) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, in relation to Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD. SECOND:

significant (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR). - basic personal identifiers were affected (name, identification number, the line identifier) (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The

procedure to the claimed, by thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c), 5.1 f) and 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article83.5 of the RGPD.FIFTH. On 07/29/20, a Proposal

accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) UK GDPR because it failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(1)(a) and (c) UK GDPR principles of lawfulness

DPA. The DPA found the controller violated the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 7(3) GDPR. Firstly, the DPA clarified that for the consent

of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD

accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1)(c), Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, or both provisions? 2.     Does the answer to Question 1 mean: a)      that the person

sec. 1 lit. a) and art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in the article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Administrative Procedure Common of

infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, infringement typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned Regulation 2016/679. II breached obligation Article 6.1 of the

ol , thete I eloo n i n I i chtí n g en d i e n st,It is undisputed that there is no Royal Decree .Proximus refers to slot also yet to Article 45.3 WEC as

1781) in connection with Article 31, Article 58(1)(a) in connection with Article 83(1)-(3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European