Search results

Bavarian administrative court in Ansbach is responsible (see 1.), is admissible (see 2.) and justified (see 3.). a legal person and a supervisory authority of

sentence 1 DSG NRW (see 1., 2.) and is not excluded by other legal provisions (see 3.) or limited within the meaning of Art. 23 DSGVO (see 4.). The claim is

version 08/12/2020 (VWA./04, see point II.2), the HAR data of the Website visit (VWA ./05, see point II.2), the XXXX (VWA ./06, see point II.2) and a certificate

by way of injunction and that such claims are not blocked by Art. 79 GDPR (see also LG Frankfurt a.M., Judgement v. 13.09.2018 - 2-03 O 283/18, ZD 2018,

3rd ed. 2020 Rn. 20, DS-GVO Art. 83 Rn. 20; Ebner/Schmidt, CCZ 2020, 84; see also resolution of 03. 04.2019 of the 97th DSK "Companies are liable for data

or court proceedings for the person concerned on behalf of a third party (see, inter alia, Werkmeister in: Gola, General Data Protection Regulation, 2nd

outside of F *****" you can see the companies that have sent data, but not which data the companies have sent; you can't see the raw data either. [94] A

the tenor. It is only partially permissible (see 1. below), but in this respect it is also justified (see 2. below). 44 1. To the extent that the plaintiff

Schaffland/Holthaus, in: Schaffland/Wiltfang, DS-GVO/BDSG, status: August 2022, Art. See also Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, judgment of October 28, 2021 - 16 U

provisions of the E. contain a full regulation, also on employee data protection (see LAG Baden-Württemberg December 20, 2018 - 17 Sa 11/18 - marginal 172) . A

law is overridden in this respect by Article 82(6) of the GDPR (see Frenzel in Paal/Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, 3rd ed. 2021, Art. 82 of the GDPR, para. 18). margin

that infringes this Regulation"). However, the CJEU has held multiple times (see e.g. C-136/04, Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH, par. 32 or C-134/08, Tyson Parketthandel

the unrefuted risk of repetition (see 1 .) and also has a claim against the defendant for the warning costs claimed (see 2.). Furthermore, the lawsuit is

and unbureaucratically (see Bergt, in: Kühling/Buchner, DS-GVO/BDSG, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 77, margin no. 10; Körffer, in: Paal/Pauly, DS-GVO/BDSG, 2nd ed.

to Art. 15 GDPR (N. Härting, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, 2016, para. 684; see also Stollhoff in: Auernhammer, DSGVO/BDSG, 7th ed. 2020, Art. 15 marginal

a general action action and also otherwise admissible (see 1.). However, it is not justified (see 2.). 15th 1. The action is admissible. 16 a) The action

the defendant's duty to publish (see a). The provision of Section 3 (1) No. 15 HmbTG is compatible with the Basic Law (see b)). An inadmissibility of the

BVerwG, judgment of September 30, 2015 - 6 C 38.14 - BVerwGE 153, 89 para. 10; see also Meents/Hinzpeter in: Taeger/Gabel, DSGVO - BDSG - TTDSG, 4th edition

- albeit regularly rather minor - breach of data protection (see Körffer, in: Paal/Pauly, DS-GVO/BDSG, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 58, marginal 18; Selmayr, in:

directed at the determination of the validity or invalidity of a provision (see BVerwG, judgement of 28 January 2010 - 8 C 19.09 -, BVerwGE 136, 54 <57>=