Search results

Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 25 GDPR, p. 577 (Oxford University Press 2020). Although Article 25(1) mentions that the measures

mechanism referred to in Article 63 GDPR (Article 28(8) GDPR). The Commission has made use of its power under Article 28(7) GDPR and published standard contractual

registered letter in violation of article 15 (1) cond. 12 par. 2, 3 and 4 GDPR and c) 30,000 euros for violation of Article 25 (1) GDPR because it did not in practice

processing of personal data meets the legal requirements, in breach of Article 25(1) GDPR. Finally, the DPA stated that the response to the access request was

Vodafone S.p.A in violation of the following GDPR provisions: Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) and Article 25(1): for failing to implement control systems of

the GDPR. In light of this, the Court agreed with the DPA that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article

on final judgments did not comply with Article 25(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for

on final judgments did not comply with Article 25(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for

comply with section 5.1(b) of the MDR, and for failure to comply with section 5.1(a) of the MDR. and 5.1(b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the MDR

the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

this from happening, in violation with Article 24(1), Article 24(2), and Article 25(1) GDPR. According to Article 24(4) of the Finish Data Protection Act

necessary. For the intentional infringement of Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 5(1)(a), (c), and (e) GDPR, the authority imposed a pecuniary penalty of €14

(f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and

coming into force of the GDPR, the DPA found that the company still did not comply. How do Article 5(1)(e) and Article 25(1) GDPR apply to archives? The

of natural persons who decisions, in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR. The DPA examined the rules for the removal of identification data displayed

HDPA held that COSMOTE violated Article 25(1) GDPR, because the processing for statistical purposes under Article 89(1) GDPR should have been done with anonymised

Commissioner held that CYTA violated articles 5 (1), 24 (1) and (2), 25 (1) and (2) and 32 of the GDPR and instructed CYTA to establish such security measures

violation of article 5 par. 1 item. e' of the GDPR, b) reprimanded the OASA for the violations of the provisions of article 25 par. 1 and article 35 par. 1 of the

information provided to data subjects was less than that required by the GDPR, and the information was not provided in an intelligible and easily accessible

information in accordance with Article 13 GDPR. In addition, the HDPA found that the Ministry violated the obligation of Article 35(9) GDPR in relation to the expression

€283,000). It held that the controller violated Articles 25(1), 32(1)(b), 32(1)(d) and 32(2) GDPR by not taking appropriate technical and organizational

was fined €380,000 for violating Articles 6(1), 13(1) and (2), and 25(1) and (2) and 32(1)(a) and (d) GDPR. A sports betting agency, acting as the controller

of Article 5, Article 6, and Article 25 GDPR. It ordered the controller to comply with the data subject's erasure request pursuant to Article 17(1)(d)

design and default. The CNIL ordered the Ministry to comply with Article 24 and 25 GDPR regarding the collection and further processing of personal data

Finnish DPA found a retail chain to have breached Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR for its lengthy storage of purchase behaviour

even though Article 32 GDPR stipulates such a technical measure for certain emails. It is important to note that only Article 6(1)(a) GDPR allows for such

fulfilled. The school breaches Article 6(1)(b) in combination with Article 6(4) and Article 6(1) Articles 24 and 25 GDPR Furthermore, as the school continued

and Article 58(2)(b) in connection with Article 5(1)(f), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1) and (2) of 2 of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European

the basis of Article 58, paragraph 2, point b) GDPR and Article 100, §1, 5 ° WOG to be reprimanded for the infringement of Article 25 (1) GDPR; b. on the

According to Article 72.1 LOPDGDD, the violation of data processing principles under Article 5 GDPR was considered very serious. Considering Article 25(1) GDPR

5- □ 1-i; -J L ..J Brussels-2020 Court of Appeal / AR / 1333 p. 3 breach of articles 5.1.a} and 5.1.b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the GDPR read

controller had violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 17(1) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 14 GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR, and Article

with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 33 paragraph. 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 of the Regulation

(2) § 23, § 25, 25 / G. § (3), (4) and (6), 25 / H. § (2) paragraph 25 / M. § (2), 25 / N. §, 51 / A. § (1), Articles 52-54. §- in Section 55 (1) - (2), Sections

regard to Client 1 that data management - infringed Article 25 (1) to (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation, - infringed Article 32 (1) (b) of the General

expressed in Article 5 (1 ) (a)) f, and reflected in the obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1), Article 32 (1 ) (b ) and (d) and Article 32 (2)

sec. 1 lit. a) and art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32

data on the basis of Article 6.1.e GDPR ? - Did the administration sharing confidential data with a third party violates article 25 GDPR ? - Should the administration

processing carried out is in violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32 GDPR and Article 35 GDPR. Especially, the controller cannot exclude

artikel 100, §1, 2° WOG de buitenvervolgingstelling bevelen, of de klacht seponeren overeenkomstig artikel 95, §1, 1° of artikel 100, §1, 1° WOG (naargelang

5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 5 sec. 2, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. b, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 38 sec. 1, art. 39 sec. 1 lit. b and

the performance of a contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) and for legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Article 6(1)(b) GDPR In its original draft decision

violated Article 25(1) GDPR by failing to take measures designed to implement the accuracy principle in the database, and Articles 5(2) and 24(1) GDPR by failing

violation of article 17 in combination with article 21 par. 3 and article 12 paragraph 3 of the GDPR and article 25 paragraph 1 of the GDPR. For its judgment

This amounted to a violation of Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d) GDPR, Article 32(2) GDPR. Consequently, the DPA fined the

violating Article 32(4) jo Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR (security of processing). In addition, a fine of €5,000 for violating Article 25(1) GDPR (data protection

laid down in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In this context, the DPA referred to Article 25(1) GDPR (data protection by design) and Recital 78 GDPR. As a result

risk analysis. Therefore, the DPC found a violation of Article 25(1), 25(2), 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(f) GDPR, ordered Meta to comply with the provisions and imposed

thereby violating Article 13(2) GDPR. The investigated controllers did not comply with the storage limitation principle under Article 5(1) GDPR because the data

data free of charge in light of the principle of privacy by design (Article 25(1) GDPR). According to this principle, data protection issues should be taken

processing under Article 9 GDPR. Second, the HDPA also found a violation of the principle of lawfulness under Article 5(1a) of the GDPR. It found that the

accordance with Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1. 3.2. Article 25 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 25 (1) of the Data

data constituted a breach of Articles 5(1)(f) and 32 GDPR. Additionally, the controller violated Article 25(1) GDPR because it failed to implement a secure

that in accordance with Article 1 7 in in conjunction with Article 21 (3) and Article 12 (3) of the GIPA and Article 25 par. 1 of the GCP meet the conditions

city council had violated Article 13 GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR. However, since the deficiencies regarding Article 13 GDPR were corrected before the end

violation of: 1. Article 5.1.f) and 5.2 of the GDPR, Article 24.1 of the GDPR, Article 25.1 of the GDPR and Articles 32.1 and 32.2 GDPR; 2. Articles 35.1, 35.2

information obligations under Article 5(1)(a), Article 6(1), Article 12, Article 13, Article 24(1), Article 25(1) and Article 25(2). Share your comments here

controllers have violated Article 5(1)(a), Article 6(1), Article 13, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 25, Article 32, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Articles 44 and

(2) GDPR; b. a breach of Article 12(1) and (6) GDPR, Article 13(1) and (2) GDPR and Article 14(1) and (2) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and

the laptop theft, in breach of Article 32(1) GDPR. Moreover, the DPA found a violation of Articles 24(1) and 25(1) GDPR because the controller failed to

violating Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 17(1)(a), Article 17(1)(d) and Article 25(1), cf. Article 5(1)(c), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(1)(e) and Article 5(1)(f)

provisions of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR by: (a) failing

controller €5,400 for infringements of Articles 5(1)(f) and 5(2) GDPR as well as Article 25(1) and Article 32(1) GDPR. First, the controller did not ensure adequate

The DPA found violations of Articles 5(1)(a)(c)(f), 9, 25(1)(2) and issued a fine of 25,000 euros under Article 83. An advertising billboard depicted a

fairness and transparency (Article 5.1 a) GDPR), purpose limitation (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and minimum data processing (Article 5.1 c) GDPR); 4) the legal basis

violated section 13(6) of the German Telemedia Act (TMG) or Article 4(7) GDPR and Artcicle 25(1) GDPR? The Higher Regional Court Munich dismissed the appeal

comply with the principles under Article 5 GDPR, including the principle of integrity and confidentiality (Article 5(1)(f) GDPR). According to this principle

regard resources. II.1. Article 5 (1) (a) and (2) of the GDPR and Article 6 (1) of the GDPR II.1.1. Article 5 (1) a) and Article 6 (1) GDPR with regard to legality

that the controller breached Article 5(1)(f), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b) and (d), and Article 32(2) GDPR due to a lack of a reliably

accountability pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) and (2) GDPR and its responsibility of the controller under Article 24(1) and 25(1) GDPR. In addition to that, the

of Article 5 of the GDPR, Article 24(1) of the GDPR and Article 25(1) paragraph 2 of the GDPR; and 2. a breach of Article 12 paragraph 1 and paragraph 4

controller under Article 24(1) GDPR, Article 25 (1) GDPR, Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR#2"Article 32(2) GDPR. Share blogs

of the case (Article 107 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Procedure in connection with Article 77 § 1, Article 80, Article 8 § 1 and Article 11 of the Code

personal data during the promotional phone call. Article 5(1)(a), Article 6(1)(a) and Article 7 GDPR, for having carried out promotional telephone calls

5 sec. 1 lit. f of Regulation 2016/679 (and reflected in the form of obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1) and Article 32 (1) (b) and

consent under Article 6(4) GDPR and further processing for a compatible purpose under Article 6(4) GDPR. See the commentary on Article 6(4) GDPR for details

sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and sec. 3, art. 32 sec. 1 and 2 and article. 34 sec. 1, as well as art. 83 sec. 1-3 and

(2016/679) Article 12(1), 2, 3, 4 and 6, Article 5(1)(c), Article 15, Article 17, Article 25, Article 58(2)(b) and (d), Article 83 paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4

violation of: 1. Article 5 (1) (a) and (2) and Article 6 (1) GDPR; 2. Article 5, Article 24 (1) and 25 (1) and (2) GDPR; 3. Article 12 paragraph 1, paragraph

violated Articles 5(2), 24 and 25(1) GDPR. At last, the DPA established a violation of Article 5(2), Article 24 and Article 13 GDPR, for failing to provide evidence

condition of necessity is maintained under Article 6.1 b) to f) of the GDPR. The article 6.1 of the GDPR replaces Article 7 of the Directive, without the relevant

flows by the SA pursuant to Article 58(2) GDPR or failure to provide access in violation of Article 58(1) GDPR. Article 83(6) GDPR is a superfluous provision

accuracy of Article 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

No Article 5 (1) (a) and (b), Article 6 (1), Article 6 (4) Article 12 (1), Article 13, Article 21 (1) and (2), Article 24 (1), Article 25 Article 1 (1)

justify it, in breach of Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR. Finally, the Italian DPA found a violation of Article 25(1) and (2) GDPR because the controller had not

infringement of Article 33(1) GDPR, a fine of €145,600 for infringement of Article 34(1) GDPR, and a fine of €316,800 for infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In

Articles 4(11), 6(1)(a), 7 and 8 GDPR. For the definition of 'consent', see the more commentary under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 7 GDPR. For the definition

security of the data, in violation of Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR and warned the controller for a violation of Article 25(1) GDPR. The DPA fined the controller

non-material damage. Article 32(1) GDPR reflects the principle of integrity and confidentiality enshrined in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The controller and the

violation of Article 7(3) GDPR and it also failed to comply with the requirements set out in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR. Accordingly,

minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR), integrity and confidentiality (Article 5(1)(f) GDPR) and privacy by design and by default (Article 25 GDPR). These principles

fined DW €14,385,000 for intentional infringement of Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (e) and of Article 25(1) GDPR. The DPA found that DW intentionally failed to take

elements in Article 2(1) are fulfilled, the GDPR applies unless the processing falls under one of the exemptions named in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) GDPR. The first

of the GDPR, Article 6 of the GDPR, Article 9 of the GDPR, Article 12 of the GDPR, Article 35 of the RGPD, Article 13 of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD

paying profiles. II.4. Article 12(1),(2) and (3), Article 17, Article 19, Article 24(1) and Article 25(1) AVG 63. Article 12 (1) GDPR stipulates that the

categories of data established in Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, Article 9(2)(c) GDPR, Article 9(2)(g) GDPR and Article 9(2)(i) GDPR directly correlate with a specific

(e.g. Article 25 (1) and (2), Article 28(1), Article 32(1) GDPR, Article 89(1) GDPR). These measures can also be regarded as measures under Article 24(1)

exercise on their behalf all rights foreseen under Articles 77 and 78 GDPR and Article 20 of L. 4624/2019. The mandate shall be given with a specific written

According to the final paragraph in Article 49(1) GDPR, when none of the derogations described above (Article 49(1)(a-g) GDPR) is applicable, transfers to third