Search results

enable the data subject to verify the accuracy and completeness of the data (§33 of the Order). On the second question Recital 63 GDPR establishes that the

its territorial jurisdiction. 2. On the territorial jurisdiction of the CNIL 33. The rule for the territorial application of the requirements set out in Article

rights to private property and freedom of enterprise, recognized in arts. 33 and 38 CE, respectively”. The defendant also alleges that the area between

on the preliminary draft law that has become the WVG. See CPP, Advice No. 33/2018, p. 44 Decision on the substance 15/2023/2023 - 9/35 data subjects. Under

originally collected (ECJ March 2, 2023 - C-268/21 - [Norra Stockholm Bygg] para. 33). The objectives standardized in Art. 6 Para. 4 GDPR include, according to

the DSA (see Müller-Terpitz/Köhler/Barudi, DSA, 1st ed. 2024, Art. 16 para. 33; also critical of the mixing of the acquisition of knowledge under Section

by means of free evidence (Althammer in: Zöller, code of civil procedure, 33rd edition 2020, § 56 ZPO, para. 8 m.w.N.). 31Since the authenticity of the

the protection of the processing of personal data. In application of Article 33 § 1 of the LCA, the Litigation Chamber is the administrative litigation body

§ 38 valid from March 1st, 2013 last changed by Federal Law Gazette I No. 33/2013 AVG § 38 valid from February 1st, 1991 to February 28th, 2013 AVG § 73

Court of Justice, judgment of 4 July 2019 - I ZR 149/18, juris marginal no. 33 - environmental assistance; Federal Court of Justice, judgment of 5 October

infringement fee, cf. also the Personal Data Act § 26 second paragraph and § 33. This case concerns breaches of the regulations that occurred at a time prior

information was provided on time within the one-month deadline of Art 12 III GDPR. 33The person responsible must be granted a certain period of time within which

based on the notification of a whistle-blower with a special status in Article 33. The processing log extract in question for the period from 5.5.2019 has 366

28 (2) of the Administrative Court Procedure Act, Federal Law Gazette I No. 33/2013 as amended (VwGVG). b) The revision is permissible according to Art.

been removed from its intranet by the defendant does not alter this finding. 33. As indicated below (see paragraphs 38 to 40), this is a prima facie decision

see Kühling / Buchner / Bäcker, 3rd edition 2020, GDPR Art. 14 marginal no. 33; Paal / Pauly / Paal / Hennemann, 3rd edition 2021, GDPR Art. 14 Rn. 34) must

contractual service (cf. Kastelitz in Knyrim, DatKomm Art 7 GDPR, margin no. 33). Consent is to be assessed based on the criteria of imbalance, necessity

is required and the scope of related responsibilities (see articles 30, 32, 33, par. 2, 82 and 83 of the Regulation). The data controller is entitled to

completely separate from the fragments. 2.26. By e-mail of November 27, 2018 (14:33 hours) [plaintiff 1] (in the person of [name A] ) responds to this: As I have

the privacy related information after a second letter from the Inspectorate.33 Moreover, the additional Inspection Report dated 24 October 2019 also shows