Search results

breach of the obligation to inform pursuant to Article 14 of the GDPR 20. According to Article 14 of the GDPR: 1. Where personal data has not been collected

Litigation under Article 62, § 1 of the LCA. 8. On October 13, 2020, the Litigation Chamber decides, pursuant to Article 95, § 1, 1° and article 98 of the LCA

recorded such acts and uploaded the video to Instagram had infringed Article 6(1) GDPR, for processing personal data without a legitimate basis (namely without

legislator used the open clause of Article 6(1)(c) and (e) GDPR, in combination with Article 6(2) and Article 6(3) GDPR, to create a legal basis for the

2019, GDPR Art. 37, para. 1; Döpfler , EU-GDPR and BDSG, 2nd edition 2020, GDPR Art. 37, marginal 1; Paal / Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, 2nd ed. 2018, GDPR Art.

premium adjustment on Art. 15 (1) and (3) GDPR. 53 aa) According to Art. 15 (1) GDPR, the person responsible (Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR), i.e. the person who decides

and Article 5, Chapter IV and Article 83. The relevant obligations 2.5. Chapter 1 GDPR sets out the general provisions. Article 5 of Chapter I GDPR sets

disclosure lacked legal basis, and was in violation of Article 6(1) and Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. The recordings had already been handed over to the police

Litigation under article 62, § 1 of the LCA. er 8. On March 30, 2022, the Litigation Division decides, pursuant to Article 95, § 1, 1° and article 98 of the LCA

GG Art. 1 Paragraph 1; Article 2 paragraph 1 GDPR Art. 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Letter e; Article 18 paragraph 1 letter d; Article 21 paragraph 1 Tags: Toleration

and 60 of the GDPR does not apply " established by the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 par. 1, 2 par. 1 and 3 par. 2

under Article 14 GDPR, comply with his access request pursuant to Article 15 GDPR, and to erase his personal data pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) GDPR. The

does not follow this line of argument. In this case, both Article 35 of the Wbp and Article 25 of the Wpg provide the right of inspection for [appellant]

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 a Luxembourg

elements according to Article 83 GDPR, the DPA imposed a fine in the amount of €18,000 for a violation of Article 5, 9, 32 GPDR and Article 157 of the Italian

use of your data 21 GDPR, he did not explain to what extent the Data processing based on Article 6 Paragraph 1 Letter f of the GDPR is nevertheless not

subjects, according to Article 33(1) GDPR and Article 34(1) GDPR? The PUODO held that the insurance company infringed the GDPR provisions, failing to notify

the data processed (Article 5, paragraph 1, letter d) of the Regulation), nor in terms of safety and integrity (Article 5, paragraph 1, letter f) of the

processing as per Article 5(1)(b), nor legal grounds as per Article 6. In sum, the DPA found that NIF had breached Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (f), Article 6, and Article

submits that Article 77 AVG 2, interpreted in the light of Articles 1, 51(1) and 57 AVG, recitals 7, 10 and 141 AVG, Article 8 Charter and Article 16 TFEU,