Search results

measures to security of processing, in accordance with Article 32 GDPR, in connection with Article 24 GDPR, as the controller did not take into account the risks

dissuasive" as per Article 83(1). In addition to a breach of Article 6(1)(f), the lack of organisational measures pursuant to Article 5(2) was weighted

defendant) for the infringement of the accuracy principle, as per Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR. The decision is the consequence of a complaint submitted by another

Privacy Ordinance Article 4 no. 2. For this processing of personal data, the mission assembly is responsible for processing. Article 6 (1) of the Privacy

Regulation) Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 5, Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph f, Article 17(1)(a), (c) and (d), Article 17(3)(a), Article 21(1) Judgments

plain. The word "concise" in Article 12(1) GDPR, however, does not mean incomplete, all mandatory information from Article 13 GDPR must still be included. The

violated Article 34(2) GDPR, because he only informed the data subject of the alleged data loss. However, the information obligations of Article 34 GDPR provide

(articles 12 and 14 of the GDPR); A breach of his right of access (article 15 of the GDPR); A breach of Article 28 of the GDPR with regard to its status

violation of the general right of personality under Article 1.1, Article 2.1 of the Basic Law (Article 7, Article 8 of the Basic Law) was to be taken into account

data on the basis of Article 6.1.e GDPR ? - Did the administration sharing confidential data with a third party violates article 25 GDPR ? - Should the administration

the grounds of (i) the absence of a high risk within the meaning of Article 35.5 GDPR and (ii) the fact that the present complaint is only a side dispute

Protection Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned

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

terminated, must be assessed in the light of Article 6 GDPR and not Article 10 GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR provides a sufficient basis for processing. The

the GDPR, as the data falls under Article 9 GDPR and awarded € 800 in emotional damages. The Austrian Business Code cannot override Article 9 GDPR. There

states that the party concerned violated Article 83(4)(a) GDPR in conjunction with [Article 32(1) GDPR. Article 32 (1) GDPRby failing, at least with gross

images, in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) found that the defendant's conduct violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as a broader principle

communication service. Therefore, TikTok had to obtain valid consent (Article 4(11) GDPR) from users before using the identifiers. The DPA stated that it should

1 No. 4 DSG 3) a) Section 52 para. 2 no. 7 DSG 2000 in conjunction with § 69 (5) DSG b) Art. 62 Para. 1 No. 4 DSG 4) a) Section 52 para. 2 no. 4 DSG 2000

been deleted by the employer upon request pursuant to Article 16, Article 17 and Article 5(1)(d) GDPR (inaccuracy of personal data). Therefore, the employer