Search results

to the public, violating Article 24 GDPR. The decision discusses as well, the relationship between directive 95/46/EC and GDPR. The DPA highlighted that

on legitimate interests according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and that Ziggo had to comply with Article 6(4)(d) GDPR. The Court found that DFW had a legitimate

referred to the provision of Art. 15 (4) GDPR. With regard to the respondent's reference to the provision of Art. 15 (4) GDPR, however, it should be noted that

guaranteed by article 13 of the LOPDGDD and article 15 of the RGPD. While in Law I, it is indicated “Subsequently, the appellant presented on 03/19/2019 a letter

the GDPR within 1 month starting from the receipt of this decision; c)ordered the company comply with the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR, as

information provided to data subjects was less than that required by the GDPR, and the information was not provided in an intelligible and easily accessible

requirements of Article 6(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR, which cannot be superseded by relying on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR? Is Article 5(1)(c) GDPR (data

according to Article 82 GDPR. The District Court rejected the claim of the data subject. It held that the controller did not violate Article 15(1) GDPR. It found

under the GDPR and needs to establish a valid legal basis to process personal data. Unsolicited political communication is regulated with Article 11 L. 3471/2006

defendant pursuant to Article 100(1) °WOG, since that first defendant does not appear to be a data controller in accordance with Article 4(7) AVG for the facts

unlawfully. 2.4 Administrative fine Pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, preamble, in conjunction with Article 83, paragraph 4, of the GDPR and article 14, third

accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) UK GDPR because it failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(1)(a) and (c) UK GDPR principles of lawfulness

company "bieNNova" infringed Article 21 LSSI (Ley de Servicios de Sociedad de la Información y de Comercio Electronico). Article 21 establishes that it is

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, a warning sanction and for a violation of article 32 of the GDPR, typified

computer was accessed (16.5.2018) (note 1.3.2019, p. 4-5). 1.4. On 17 May 2019, pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 5, of the Code, the Office notified the

the registration. assessment framework 4.4 The assessment framework that the court used in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4 of the decision of 24 June 2019 was not

accordance with Article 132, Article 168 23 of the Law on Administrative Responsibility first part, Article 172 and Article 173, first part, paragraph 4, Article

not necessarily meet the requirements of Article 32 GDPR. To what extent are the provisions in Article 32 GDPR obligatory and thus, not subject to the preferences

processing special categories of data, cf. Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d), Article 24 and Article 35, cf. Article 5. In May 2019, a municipality reported

Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/5The LOPDGDD states in its article 5:" 1. Those responsible and in charge of data processing