Search results

intrusive and therefore could not be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Secondly, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR indicates that personal data should be adequate, relevant

allow them to adequately develop the functions that the GDPR assigns them, as Recital 97 of the GDPR recalls, "The level of necessary specialized knowledge

Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and Article 32 of the GDPR, classified respectively in Article 83.5 of the GDPR and Article 83.4 of the GDPR. SEVENTH: Notified

26 GDPR. The agreements between Criteo and its commercial partners did not contain specific obligations in relation to the requirements of the GDPR, such

corresponding interest can be found in the GDPR. Notably, the PG referenced Recital 52 and Article 9 GDPR. Recital 52 GDPR states that a derogation from the prohibition

4(1) of the GDPR. I further note that the text of the accompanying recital (Recital 26 of the Directive) is very similar to the text of Recital 26 of the

of the GDPR according to Art. 99 Para. 2 GDPR as of May 25, 2018 follows from Art. 79 Para. 2 Sentence 1 GDPR in conjunction with recital 22 GDPR as well

/ Weichert / Sommer, EU-GDPR and BDSG, 2nd edition 2020, Art. 9 GDPR marginal 3).9 GDPR does not allow recourse to Art. 6 GDPR (Albers / Veit in Wolff

Articles 63 to 66 GDPR. The GDPR also established a cooperation mechanism between the supervisory authorities. It follows from Article 60 GDPR that the lead

interest. Based on Article 2 (1) of the GDPR, the GDPR must be applied to the data management in this case. GDPR Article 4, point 1: "personal data": for

data and on the free movement of such data. 3 Recital 3. 4 Recital 5. § Recital 7. 7 See, i particular, Recitals 11, 148, 150, and Article 5, Chapter IV and

Reference to Art. 79 GDPR does not justify any jurisdiction, since Art. 79 GDPR (like Art. 77 GDPR) only refers to violations of the GDPR but not on national

6(1)(f) GDPR, Recital 47 GDPR and the CJEU’s settled case-law 171, three cumulative conditions must be met to be able to rely on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, ‘namely

under the GDPR. Pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR, the DPA imposed a PLN 1,968,524 fine on the controller for the above-discussed GDPR violations

basis under Article 6(1) GDPR and in violation of transparency obligations in the privacy policy under Article 5(1)(a) and 13 GDPR. The DPA in the first instance

DPA considered the infringement of Article 5 GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR, as well as Articles 25(1) and (2) GDPR. Secondly, the DPA addressed the access request

5(1)(d) GDPR and data protection by design of Article 25(1) GDPR. In addition, the DPA held that the controller violated Articles 5(1)(a) and 13 GDPR by not

violated the article 15 of the GDPR, infringement typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR. IV. Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR "Security of treatment", states

found that GDPR does not prevent the claimant from exercising their basic right. In this regard the court referred to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR to highlight

Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR due to a failure to respond to an access request that was submitted around a month after the GDPR became applicable