Search results

and 7(1) GDPR; Articles 5, paragraph 2 and 24 GDPR; Articles 12, paragraph 1, j° 13 and 14 GDPR; Article 5(1)(e) GDPR; and Article 7(3) GDPR. - order the

view to a powerful enforcement of the rules of the GDPR. As is clear from Recital 148 GDPR, the GDPR states after all, it is important to note that for

85 GDPR, so that Chapter II (including Art 6 GDPR) to VII and IX of the GDPR do not apply. The regulation of § 9 DSG, which is based on Art 85 GDPR, is

to the properties, defending the baseless claims of B. as well as A". GDPR' Recital 111 provides that provisions should be made where the transfer is occasional

of Article 4(1) GDPR. Nevertheless, in this case the controller had the right to disregard the request in light of Article 12(5)(b) GDPR, as the latter

pursuant to Article 22 GDPR, but only 'light profiling' under Article 4(4) GDPR. Therefore, the controller claimed that Article 15(1)(h) GDPR did not apply in

planned treatment …………………………………………………………………………………… 16 Choice of intervention ……………………………………………………………………………… ..16 Penalty fee ……………………………………………………………………………… 17

Article 78(1) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 57 of the GDPR. Article 57 of the GDPR. The scope of Article 57 of the GDPR is indeed open. Pursuant

organizational measures to ensure data protection by design and by default (Article 25 GDPR)? The DPA held that Robinsons-Tour and Next Time Media Agency did not implement

allowed the processing of sensitive data based on consent and that recital 42 GDPR states that to be freely given, a consent must be based on a real choice

(2) and 24 (1), (2) GDPR), privacy by design (Article 25 (1) GDPR) and as controller towards its data processors (Article 28 GDPR). Consequently, the Garante

transparent manner in relation to the data subject": UK GDPR Art 5(1)(a). This provision is supplemented by Recital 39 which provides, relevantly: "Any processing

reply to the request for information. In its decision, the DPA cited Recital 35 GDPR which specifies that data related to health ‘includes information on

LinkedIn and Salesforce.com. The DPA held that the GDPR was not applicable according to Article 3 GDPR. The controller was a company based in the United

doubts about the identity of the person making the request”. Moreover, Recital 64 GDPR require the measures adopted to identify data subjects to be “reasonable”

consent cf. Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The DPA referred to Article 4(11) GDPR, Article 7 GDPR and Recital 32 regarding the conditions

services for adults) breached Articles 5(1)(a), 6(1), 9(2), 13, 35 and 36 GDPR and Section 15 Camera Surveillance Act. The DPA imposed a fine of SEK 200

Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. When the cameras also record, as in this case, public or private spaces, this provisions doesn’t apply. Therefore, the GDPR was applicable

it has nothing to do with the matter that the reference to the Recital 64 of the GDPR to which the defendant refers, like those other subsequent references

initiation of administrative proceedings, he referred to recital 87 of Regulation 2016/679 and not to recital 85 of Regulation 2016/679, as indicated by the Company