Search results

considered that the data processing lacked a legal basis, violating Article 6(1) GDPR. Thirdly, the DPA pointed out that the misuse of these credentials

negligence of the infringement (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) the impact on basic personal identifiers (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR) Share your comments here! Share

data constituted a breach of Articles 5(1)(f) and 32 GDPR. Additionally, the controller violated Article 25(1) GDPR because it failed to implement a secure

free copy (see below (b)) is neither by Article 15 (4) GDPR (see below (c)) nor by Article 12 (5) sentence 2 GDPR excluded (see below (d)). The claim is

City wished to rely on Articles 6(1)(e) and 9(1)(g) GDPR. Under Article 6(3) GDPR, reliance on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR as a legal basis for processing must

Sentence 1 GDPR, Section 2 Para. 1 BMG and Art. 3 Para. 1 GG. He, the plaintiff, is entitled to a right to correction under Art. 16 Sentence 1 GDPR. The court

communicate data relating to the plaintiff himself. In accordance with Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, this data processing in form of a data transfer could be considered

personal data from Article 9 GDPR. According to the AEPD, even if the controller may had relied on the exemption on Article 9 GDPR(2)(f), since the data

According to Article 12 (1) GDPR, a controller must only take "appropriate measures" so that the notification obligation pursuant to Article 15 GDPR is fulfilled

has not violated the article 15 of the GDPR, infringement typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR. IV. Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR "Security of treatment"

of article 80.1.a) of the LGT, by motivating him in a generic way. 3. Disagreement with the application of the aggravating factor of article 80.1.c) of

violation of the provisions of article 5.1 c) of the article 5.1 c) of the RGPD, which implies an infringement typified in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, which

the meaning of Article 57 (1) (f) GDPR. The submission from December 2017 should not be regarded as a complaint in this sense, as the GDPR was not yet applicable

the right to portability of the data; c) when the treatment is based on article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), the existence

irregularity. C. On the breach of Article 82 of the Data Protection Act 26. Under Article 82 of the Data Protection Act, transposing Article 5(3) of the

violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD. SAW Second unfulfilled obligation: violation of article 32.1 of the RGPD Article 32 of the GDPR “Security of processing”

the LPBCFT before the TGSS. III Article 6.1 of the GDPR According to article 6 of the GDPR “Legitimacy of processing: 1. Treatment will only be legal if

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE A.A.A., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infraction of article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD, a fine of €2,000 (two

basis of consent, Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. In particular, Article 6 (1) (c) (legal obligation of the controller and Article 6 (1) (e) GDPR (public interest)

this regulation in accordance with Article 57 (1) (a) GDPR and which has the powers in accordance with Article 58 GDPR. For this reason alone, there was