Search results

requirements. Although Article 40(5) GDPR mentions that the competent DPA will be determined through the application of Article 55 GDPR, the GDPR does not provide

refusal to take action on a data subject’s request (Article 12(4)). The first sentence of Article 20(3) GDPR clarifies that the exercise of the right to data

of such processing (see Article 5(1)(b) GDPR), the requirement to have a legitimate basis laid down by law (see Article 6(1) GDPR), the right to access and

complaint with the CNIL regarding an alleged infringement of the GDPR. According to Article 10 of the Decree n°2019-536, the complaint will be deemed rejected

Protection Ordinance Article 5, paragraph Article 5 (2) 1, letter c and letter f., Article 5, paragraph Article 6 (1) (a) Article 32 (1), (1), (33) 1 and 35, para

protection within the meaning of Article 45 of the GDPR and without appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of the GDPR. Furthermore, the plaintiff

the personal data to be provided pursuant to Article 15(1) GDPR: must Article 15(3) first sentence of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that, due to the

violation of Articles 5,15 GDPR, 33 Law 4624/2019. Thus, the HDPA, making use of its corrective powers of Article 58(2)c GDPR, ordered the College to provide

as Article 57 (1) (a), Article 58 (2) (e) and (i), Article 83 (1) - (3) and Article 83 (4) (a) in connection with Article 33 (1) and Article 34 (1), (2)

pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Failure to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with the GDPR The DPA

breach of Article 32 of the GDPR has occurred. B. On the failure to notify the data breach to the CNIL 32. Pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the GDPR, in the

personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. Their processing would require the data subjects' explicit consent under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and § 151(4) GewO,

council in Greece to cease their processing activities, under Article 58(2) GDPR and Article 15(8) of Law 4624/2019, because of an unresolved data breach

data in violation of the Privacy Ordinance, Article 5 (1) (a) and (c), Article 6, Article 12 (1) and Article 13. The Authority requested in the notification

Breyer, C-582/14, EU:C:2016:779, paras 45–46. 10 ECJ judgment M.I.C.M, C-597/19, EU:C:2021:492, paragraphs 102–104 and Breyer judgment, C-582/14, EU:C:2016:779

right to access under Article 15 GDPR because the controller was entitled to reject the request pursuant to Article 12(5)(b) GDPR. The court reasoned that

this regulation in accordance with Article 57 (1) (a) GDPR and which has the powers in accordance with Article 58 GDPR. For this reason alone, there was

by the defendant under Article 6(1) GDPR? Did the controller infringe the data minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR? Did the controller commit

plastic applied the text "shredding". 4.2. Article 33 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 33 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1

foundation was responsible for violating Article 33 GDPR, and issued it with a warning pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. The AEPD did not find the former Secretary