Search results

BeckOK DatenschutzR/Stender-Vorwachs, Ed. 28, Article 85 marginal no. 20; Frey, in: Schwartmann et al, DSGVO/BDSG, 2018, Art. 85 para. 25; further probably

BeckOK DatenschutzR/Stender-Vorwachs, Ed. 28, Article 85 marginal no. 20; Frey, in: Schwartmann et al, DSGVO/BDSG, 2018, Art. 85 para. 25; further probably

d violation of articles 11 of Legislative Decree no. 196 of 2003 and 5 of r R egolam ent (U E) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and o Council, because

of the previous sentence . " [16] Ch. Official website review note, no. 0610-376 / 2020/22 of 1 February 2021. [17] Ch. Annex 5 and Annex 7 of IP document

Judge HC-2015-000177 [2015] EWHC 2366 (Ch) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 16/02/2017 B e f o r e : LADY JUSTICE ARDEN LORD JUSTICE DAVID

purpose of fraud prevention in mail order business). [...]" By letter dated 25 January 2022, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant cease and desist from

important public interest has i.a. a. introduced in ch. § 3 of the Data Protection Act.3 According to ch. Section 3, first paragraph 2 of the Data Protection

v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1973) 2 AllE.R 943 and Banker’s Trust v. Shabira (1980) 1 W.L.R 1274 are covered by this Law and, by extension, are

its turnover. 1.8. Stir n! = I.06.2020, the Bank's External Legal Advisers, r(Chrysafinis & Polyviou D.E.P.E.), acting on behalf of their client,(Bank),

protected within the health and medical care by confidentiality according to 25 ch. Section 1 of the Publicity and Confidentiality Act (2009:400). Because two

Franck, in: Gola, DS-GVO, 2nd ed. 2018 Art. 15 DS-GVO marginal no. 25; BeckOK-DatenschutzR/Schmidt-Wudy, 34th ed. as of 01.11.2020, Art. 15 DS-GVO marginal

[2017] EMLR 9 and Richard v British Broadcasting Corpn [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch); [2019] Ch 169 whereas suspects have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation

easy to understand: see eg Thaler R and Sunstein C, Nudge: The Final Edition (2021), pp 36-38; Samuelson W and Zeckhauser R, “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making”

of expression afforded publishers of online contents". → See BVerfG - 1 BvR 16/13 for the other parallel decision. The complainant sought injunctive relief

"was freely downloadable at the address: h t t p: / / a r e a d o c u m e n t a l. s e r v i z i r l. i t / a t t i / d o w n l o a d /AAAAYBnbrd+mLfAGu

(2) paragraph, § 23, § 25, § 25/G. in paragraphs (3), (4) and (6) of § 25/H. § (2) in paragraph 25/M. in paragraph (2) of § 25/N. § 51/A. in paragraph

legal assistance agreement. This contradicts Articles 7, 8, 11 and 52 (1) GrCh and the interpretation of these norms by the ECJ, according to which official

Fiscal Court ruling of July 30, 2003 VII R 45/02, BStBl II 2004, 387; BVerfG decision of March 10, 2008 1 BvR 2388/03, BStBl II 2009, 23). Financial case

and to the extent that, the data subject already has Page 25 Decision on the merits 15/2021 - 25/32of its information) or article 14.5 a) of the GDPR (absence

will not be repeated. The defendant blocked the plaintiff's contribution on 25.12.2018 (p. 776 of the annex) with the statement that his contribution did