Search results

notified the Romanian DPA of several data breaches, in accordance with Article 33 GDPR. Following these notifications, the DPA opened an investigation against

tax debtor in the sense of § 43 AO and thus a taxpayer in accordance with § 33 AO. Consequently, the plaintiff could now assert all rights to information

from Alpha Bank Romania (controller) to the Romanian DPA pursuant to Article 33 GDPR. The controller reported that a document was sent to another recipient

controller failed to notify the DPA within 72 hours, in violation of Articles 33; d) the controller failed to implement sufficient technical and organisational

DPA of a personal data breach. The notification was made pursuent to Article 33 GDPR. The notification stated that the breach occurred due to a technical

so (regulation 33(5)). Those authorities are (i)  the criminal courts, prosecutor's offices and investigating authorities (regulation 33(5)(1)); (ii)  the

the Constituency by contravening the (information) obligations of Articles 33 and 34 Wbp and/or Articles 12, 13 and 14 General Data Protection Regulation3

by letter, date. 1 March 2018. States that pursuant to Article 10 of Law No 33/2013 on consumer credit the lender should an assessment of the creditworthiness

with the second paragraph of Article 32 and the second paragraph of Article 33 of ZVOP 2, the findings essential for the decision in the subject matter were

controller did not appropriately notify the security breach as required by Article 33(1) and Article 34(1) GDPR. Regarding its first decision, the DPA pointed out

controller made a data breach notification to the DPA according to Article 33(1) GDPR. The controller argued that the data breach happened due to a human

€2000). Based on a notification of a personal data breach pursuant to Article 33 GDPR by Casa Rusu SRL, a controller, the Romanian DPA started an investigation

Federal Law Gazette I No. 33/2013 VStG § 64 valid from 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2013 last changed by Federal Law Gazette I No. 33/2013 VStG § 64 valid from

(cf. Horn/Hofmann, in: Beck VergabeR, 4th ed. 2022, GWB § 160, paras. 26, 33). e. The applicant filed the application for review within the time limit

rights of data subjects in favour of the controller (the 'balancing test'). 33. As regards the first condition (the so-called 'purpose test'), the AVG acknowledges

a - possibly vague - restriction cannot be inferred from the application. 33c) The application is unfounded because it is too broad. 34aa) Even if one

information and do not distinguish between it and personal data”. Section 33: “Now, the operator of the search engine is the one who determines the purposes

the file was notified to the respondent, with the date of delivery being 10:33 on 04/03/2019. In accordance with Article 73.1 of the LPACAP, 'The formalities

has notified the Guarantor of a violation of personal data pursuant to art. 33 of the Regulation in relation to the report made on 29 August 2018 by the

violations of constitutional rights from Articles 2, 14, 21, 22, 23, 25, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 42, Articles 49, 50, 53, 67, 74 and 78 of the Constitution and