Search results

violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 25(2) GDPR and Section 29(4) of the Finnish Data Protection Act. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(d)

as per Article 25 GDPR and the liability principle of 5(2) GDPR. The DPA finally found out that the provision on impact assessment, as per Article 35 GDPR

policies regulating this, they failed to comply to Article 24(1) and (2) GDPR and Article 25(1) and (2) GDPR. No fine was imposed, but a reprimand and clear

conduct a DPIA cf. Article 35 - clearly inform students cf. Article 12 that a) it's voluntary to participate in the survey cf. Article 13(2)(f), and b) that

the social and health authority of a city to have breached Article 6(1) GDPR and Article 10 GDPR by requesting data subjects to provide it with personal data

requirements of the GDPR; Because from Recital 171 Sentence 2 GDPR, from Art. 4 No. 2 GDPR and Art. 24 Para. 1, in particular Sentence 2 GDPR, the obligation

Thus, it violated Article 15 GDPR. The Datatilsynet issued an injunction and ordered the company, as foreseen under 58(2)(c) GDPR, to carry out a concrete

are established in Article 58.2 of the RGPD.2(b), the power to impose an administrative fine under Article 83 of the GDPR - Article 58(2)(i), or the power

this processing, in violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR; It violated Article 13(1) and (1) GDPR, and Article 5(1) GDPR by failing to adequately inform data

with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD SECOND:

the DPA issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The

The interpretation of article 13 of the Wbp is no different from that of article 32 of the GDPR, described in paragraphs 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. Also in the period

automated control system, as provided for in draft Article 2-1 (III) of the amended Order of 13 October 2004. Article 3 of the said Order is also amended to expressly

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

thatestablishes article 83.2 of the RGPD, and with the provisions of article 76 of theLOPDGDD, regarding section k) of the aforementioned article 83.2 RGPD.In

accordance with Article 30(1) GDPR, despite employing fewer than 250 persons, because of the risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subject (article 30(5) GDPR)

of his personal data would be based 5. 1, a) GDPR, Article 6, Article 12.1 GDPR and Article 14.1 a) GDPR. 67. Moreover, a controller, in this case defendant

57(1)(a), Article 83(1)-(2) and Article 83(6) in connection with Article 58(2)(e) and (i) of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

street. The DPA was allowed to issue a reprimand, Art. 58(2)(b) GDPR. On the basis of Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR, the DPA was not entitled to order the removal of camera

orrequest-related processing activities. ». 2.5. Article 32 - Processing security:2.5.1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure, which