Search results

such a context, the judging Senate recently stated (6 Ob 35 / 21x): "1. According to Art.82 (1) GDPR, every person who has suffered material or immaterial

of personal data follow from Article 5 (1) of the Privacy Regulation. We refer to Article 5 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (f): 3 1. Personal data shall a) is processed

follows: Article 83 paragraph 1, 2 and 5 lit. a GDPR:Article 83, paragraph ,, 2 and 5 lit. a, GDPR: "Article 83 General conditions for imposing fines 1. Each

infringement in question was correctly defined as a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1)(f). However, the PVN did not agree that the infringement

personal data in that assessment pursuant to Article 15(1) GDPR. However, Article 23(1)(i) GDPR and Article 41 UAVG provide the possibility of a restriction

violation of Article 12 GDPR ? Are the following practices an infringement on data subjects' information right as described in Article 12 GDPR ? Spreading

implementing the ePrivacy Directive and Articles 6(1)(a) and 7 GDPR, in the lights of Article 4(11) and Recital 32 GDPR. Following this report, the GBA issued a

there was a personal data breach under Article 4(12) GDPR. The DPA stated that it follows from Article 32(1) GDPR that the controller must take appropriate

force Basis: AvTS § 35 (1) p. 12, AvTS § 35 (1) p. 2 PRESCRIPTION WARNING In the case of the Electronic Communications Act No. 2.1.-1/24/181-367-3 Annika

under Article 82(1) of the GDPR; they can only "lead to [...] non-material damage". [21] (7) Compensation for non-material damage under Art 82(1) GDPR therefore

referred to in Article 2.3.2 or by virtue of Article 2.3.8, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4 or 5.2.5 and necessary for the implementation of Article 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.3.2

under article 6 GDPR. However, the Court concluded that an immediate notification sent to the data subject was not necessary under article 34 GDPR. In particular

having knowledge of the following: 1.1 In general, marketing actions can be classified attending to several criteria. 1.1.1. Campaigns managed directly by

the data 35. The Commission recalls that ensuring the accuracy and updating of the data is a legal obligation under Article 5.1(d) of the GDPR. 36. In this

fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as well as the principle of data minimisation pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, since they did not process

company was not compliant with Article 13 GDPR. The CNPD held that the controller infringed Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and decided to: - impose

obligations in accordance with Article 26 of the GDPR. 1.3. Processing of personal data included in the scope of this methodology 1.3.1. Only processing of personal

lawfulness, fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, and the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR. Additionally, the HDPA held that the

by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, since there have been violations of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. The defendant also breached

legal basis for their processing in article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However, according to article 17(1)(c) and article 21(1) GDPR, upon receiving an erasure request