Search results

other legal basis for processing under Article 6 GDPR, the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR. Taking into account the low income

be erased and thus also violates Article 17.1(c) AVG. 3.2. With regard to the infringement of Article 6.1 and Article 21.4 of the AVG 29. In its statement

Information Acts and the GDPR. Due to the questions of EU law raised by the case with regard to Article 23(1)(e) GDPR and Article 23(1)(j) GDPR, the BVerwG had

court stated that neither Article 17 GDPR nor Article 79(1) GDPR include a right to injunctive relief. Due to the primacy of the GDPR, a claim for injunctive

COURT IN ZAGREB Avenija Dubrovnik 6 and 8 Business number: UsI-4017/23-6 IN I M E R E P U B L I K E H R V A T S K E P R E S U D A The Administrative Court

in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter GDPR), and in

the data could be processed under the legitimate interest basis (ARTICLE 6(1)(f) GDPR). The tribunal weighted the different interests at stake and decided

of Paragraph 1 or Article 2 1 Principal is entitled to claim damages against the person responsible or against the processor under Article 82 of the DSGVO

personal data by bank to the data subject's wife under Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR and Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR. An additional €50,000 was added for the violation

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public

under Article 4(1) GDPR. These statistics even included health data which qualify as a special category of personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. The Datatilsynet

Against this background, the various sub-claims 1.(i) to 1.(vi) are judged as follows. - i) Claim 1.(i) relates to the question of what happened during

processing on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. Since 5 April 2023, the controller informed the users the processing was done under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and offered

surprise, on 04/27/23, I received another commercial email again. Then I access the website https://www.shopbuo.com/politica-deprivacidad and I find the email

this data breach a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR? The AEPD concluded that there was no violation of Article 32(1) GDPR, because the company had implemented

grond van art. 62, §1 WOG overgemaakt aan de Geschillenkamer. 3. Op 13 maart 2020 beslist de Geschillenkamer op grond van art. 95, §1, 1° en art. 98 WOG dat

progress and the outcome of these proceedings within a reasonable time (Article 57 (1)(f) GDPR). In order to enable the enforcement of such competences, the President

be referred to respectively as '[plaintiff]' and '[the State]'. 1 The proceedings 1.1. The course of the procedure is evidenced by - the summons with productions;

authentication was in line with Article 12(1) and (2) GDPR. Google Inc. filed an appeal with the BVwG against ruling I) and II) of the decision of the

in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 inin relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of theEuropean