Search results

Art. 8 Para. 1, Para. 2 Sentence 1 TFEU Article 16 GG Art. 2 Para. 1 and Art. 1 Para. 1 BGB § 1004 paragraph 1 sentence 2 analogous GDPR Art. 2 Para. 2

large number of data subjects, i.e. all the patients of the Company itself (Article 4(1), no. 15 of the Regulation and Article 83(2)(a) and (g) of the Regulation);

portability, thereby violating Article 13(2)(b) GDPR. In light of the above, in accordance with Article 58(2)(i) GDPR and Article 83 GPDR, the AP considered

processing as per Article 5(1)(b), nor legal grounds as per Article 6. In sum, the DPA found that NIF had breached Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (f), Article 6, and Article

well founded. 1) The review procedure is permissible, in particular the threshold value pursuant to Section 106 (1) sentence 1 (2) no. 1 GWB has been complied

paragraph of Article 2, ZKme-1 (point a) of the third paragraph of Article 5, the first paragraph of Article 139, the second paragraph of Article 143 of the

item 1. Paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 Article 8 and. Article 9 Act no. 90/2018, cf. point a, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 Article 5 and paragraph 1 Article

deletion claim under Article 17 GDPR#1 as the upcoming legal processes made the data necessary for the defence of legal claims Article 17 GDPR#3e. The court found

breaching Articles 12(1), 14(1)(c), 14(2) and 14(3) GDPR. In addition, Datatilsynet also issued criticism in relation to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR for the controller’s

Analytics or Facebook Connect on websites in the EEA. In accordance with Article 80(1) GDPR, noyb lodged a complaint on 17 August 2020 with the Austrian DPA against

Therefore, the DPA confirmed a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 7 GDPR and of Article 130 of the Italian Privacy Code for having

26 Para. 1 BDSG and – for sensitive data under Art. 9 Para. 1 GDPR, such as the indication of inability to work – under § 26 Para. 3 Sentence 1 BDSG without

the requirements on how it should be provided under Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR. The court of appeal disagreed with the court of

the principles of Article 1 of the Basic Law, i.e. the obligation of all state authority to respect and protect human dignity (Article 1.1 sentence 2 of the

Legal basis: Art. 12 Para. 1, Para. 2, Para. 3 and Para. 4, Art. 15 Para. 1, Art. 23 Para. 1 lit. e, Art. 51 Para. 1, Art. 57 Para. 1 lit. f, Art. 58 Para.

Judiciales (JAVA). JAVA infringed Article 6(1)(a) GDPR by publishing illegal recordings on its website and also infringed Article 22(2) LSSI due to its cookie

in Art. Article 12 (5) GDPR applies here, i.e. whether the defendant has a right to refuse. According to the legal definition in Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR, personal

to the Privacy Ordinance, Article 6, No. 1, letter f, as the relevant valid basis for processing, as well as Article 21, No. 1 on the data subject's right

controller violated Article 33(1) GDPR by failing to inform the DPA of the data breach. Second, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 28(1), (3) and

having violated Articles 5(1)(a) and (e), 6(1), 12, 13, 15 and 17 GDPR. 2. Datatilsynet’s Decision Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, Datatilsynet issues an