Search results

purposes of prescription in article 72.1.b) and c) of the LOPDGDD. In accordance with the provisions of articles 72.1 and 74.1 of the LOPDGDD, the Infractions

of Articles 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 6.1.c), 6.3, 9.2.i), 12.1, 13.1.c), 13.2.a), 13.2.d), 13.2.e), 30.1.a) and 30.1.d), 35.1 and 35.7 of the GDPR 9. The applicant

violation of article 83.5 a) RGPD and 72.1b) of the LOPDGDD and € 50,000 for the violation of article 83.5 b) and 74 c) of the LOPDGDD. C / Jorge Juan

imposed a fine of €65,000 on Lursoft for breaching Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(c) and 6(1) GDPR. Lursoft has since appealed the decision, meaning the

meaning of Article 6 Paragraph 3 in conjunction with Paragraph 1 Letter c) or Letter e) GDPR, whereby according to Article 85 Paragraph 1, 2 GDPR the protection

the general public. It fined the publisher €50,000 for violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The data subject was the victim of a crime that was being covered

Justification 3.1.1. Regarding the purpose limitation findings (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and the lawfulness of processing (Article 6.1 GDPR) 12. In its report

documentation. The Spanish DPA concluded that there was a breach of Article 5(1)(f) and 32(1) of the GDPR. The access to the third parties’ personal data constituted

With regard to limitation periods, article 72.1.k) of the LOPDGDD, establishes: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679

Apparently, according to the applicant (C.C.C.), that camera has been installed by the mayor of *** LOCALIDAD.1 because he is the tenant of that property

the claimant on 1 January 2018 which are not taken into account in box 1 or box 2 are deductible in box 3. To this end, Article 5.3(1) of the Personal

indicated in article 9, paragraph 1, or personal data related to convictions and criminal offenses referred to in article 10 ”. On the other hand, article 31 of

fact, paragraph c) of paragraph 1 of article 4 of Directive EC/95/46, of October 24, 1995, as well as aa fnea c) of paragraph 3 of article 4 of Law 67/98

violation of article 6.1. RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a), and article 31, in relation to article 58.1.e), both of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.e) of

in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter GDPR), and in

amended: Article 3,, Article 4, number 11,, Article 7,, Article 51, paragraph one,, Article 12, paragraph 3,, Article 17,, Article 19,, Article 57, paragraph

violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and a fine of €100,000 for the violation of Article 37 GDPR. The DPA issued a reprimand for the violations of Article 5(1)(e)

provisions of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and article 32 of the GDPR, violations classified in article 83.5 of the GDPR and article 83.4 of the GDPR respectively

purpose constituted a breach of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. Secondly, the CNIL indicated that the controller breached Article 13 GDPR by failing to include the right

violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 14 GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR, and Article