Search results

€150,000 on Xfera Móviles S.A. (defendant) for infringing Article 17, 32, 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 21 LSSI. The fine was imposed after investigating two complaints

accountability (Article 5 (2) and 24 (1), (2) GDPR), privacy by design (Article 25 (1) GDPR) and as controller towards its data processors (Article 28 GDPR). Consequently

Document 1 consists of two audio files (i)803818026680675 and (ii) 803818026680926.7.1. In the audio (i) of document 1, the person making the call requests

as a data subject under Article 21(1) GDPR had been violated by the PAR. Did Mrs AAA have a right to object under Article 21 GDPR? Had the PAR infringed

in Article 6 GDPR. If the information also includes sensitive data specified in Article 9(1) GDPR, there must be a basis for processing in Article 9(2)

ruling and the GDPR; breach of Article 28 GDPR (the choice of a the processor does not provide sufficient guarantees); breach of Article 32 GDPR (lack of appropriate

supply data, without the consent of the data subject, a breach of Article 6 (1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the processing of data relating to electricity

violation of the GDPR? The Persónuvernd held that the processing was lawful for several reasons. Regarding the GDPR, it held that Article 6(1)(f) applied as

competent to decide, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(2) in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

infringement of Article 32 GDPR. Therefore, the Spanish DPA issued a warning sanction for each violation of Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR. AEPD highlighted

included in the crime of fraud of the Article 248.1 of the current CP. Crime with the aggravation of article 250.1.6º of the CP. What has been seen so far

their employees. The DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Following a visit to the premises of two public

interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The data subject was heard on this statement and filed a submission, arguing that Article 6(1)(f) GDPR does not apply

infringement of article 5.1.f), in relation to article 6.1, of the RGPD. The infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5.a) of the

(application 1 a) from § 1004 para. 1 sentence 2, § 823 para. 1 BGB, Art. 1 para 1, Article 2 Paragraph 1 GG and § 12 sentence 2 BGB negative. 74 1. The Court

second paragraph, which has its basis in Article 85(2) of the data protection regulation, it appears that i.a. Article 10 of the Data Protection Regulation

well as Art. 57 sec. 1 lit. a), art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1 - 3 and art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) in connection with Art. 33 sec. 1 of the Regulation

by the provisions of Article 58 (1) (d) I inform the Defendant of the complaint that: 17.1. In relation to the question (a) that I ask in par. 13 above

immaterial damages according to the GDPR chain of standards: GDPR Art. 15, Art. 82 Guiding principles: 1. According to Art. 82 GDPR, non-pecuniary damage caused

EDREAMS, S.L. was ordered for a violation of the Article 44 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, adapt the activity of data processing carried