Search results

the authorities of control in article 57.1 of the RGPD and in accordance with the provisions of the Title VII, Chapter I, Second Section, of the LOPDGDD

compensation for non-material damages directly stems not only from Article 82 GDPR, but also from Article 8 ECHR and Articles 2 and 21 of the Italian Constitution

controller did not violate Article 22(1) GDPR. The court held that a prerequisite for the applicability of Article 22(1) GDPR is that an automated decision

under Article 5.1 sentence 1 of the Basic Law. The claim to access to information is based on § 2.1 sentence 1 no. 1 VIG and not on Article 5.1 sentence

According to Article 94 of the GDPR "references to the repealed directive must be understood as references to the [GDPR]". 84. Under Article 4, paragraph

Sentence 2, GKG: EUR 1 million; § 52, Subsection 4, Nos. 1-3, GKG: EUR 1,500.00, EUR 2,500.00 and EUR 500,000.00, respectively; § 23, Subsection 3, Sentence

basis of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR because its processing activities infringed Articles 5(1)(a)(b) and (c), 6(1), 12(1)-(5), 15(1) and 17(1) of the GDPR

Articles 15 GDPR and 12(3) GDPR. The LAG held that a mere violation of the GDPR does not give rise to a right to compensation under Article 82(1) GDPR. The LAG

breach Article 13 GDPR even if the contact form is not operational? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) held that the defendant, PSI, violated Article 13 GDPR by failing

processing. I.2. Article 12(1) and (2), Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14(1) and (2), Article 5(2), Article 24 (1) and Article 25 (1) GDPR I.2.1. Article 12, paragraph

democratic society as required under Article 23(1)(j) GDPR. Moreover, the exception provided for under Article 6(4) GDPR which allows processing for different

private capacity should be considered recipients as per Article 4(9) GDPR and Article 15(1)(c) GDPR. A data subject bought a TV and a wall mount from an electronics

violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and a fine of €100,000 for the violation of Article 37 GDPR. The DPA issued a reprimand for the violations of Article 5(1)(e)

907a Rz 1). § 907a para. 1 sentence 1 ABGB is dispositive law (ExplanatoryRV 2111 BlgNR 24. GP 13; Kietaibl/Ladler in Kletečka/Schauer, ABGB-ON1.03 § 907a

out in Article 23(1) GDPR. § 21(2) TTDSG serves the enforcement of civil claims and thus pursues an objective mentioned in Article 23(1)(j) GDPR, which

provided in Article 5 GDPR, a lawful and transparent processing of personal data. Therefore, the DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(a) and 13 GDPR. In view

of Article 5 of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 6 (1) (a) and (c) and Article 6 (1) 1, letter e, and the Data Protection Act § 11, para. 1. However

subsequent violations of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and of the principle of accountability as foreseen in Article 5(2) GDPR read in conjunction

the Guarantor pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code "(Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Guarantor Regulation no. 1/2019). The aforementioned

The Garante ascertained the violation of: 1. Violation of articles 5(1) and (2), 6(1), 7, 24 and 25(1) GDPR, since Fastweb has not proceeded to implement