Search results

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

requirements of data minimization (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR). Under Article 30(1)(f) GDPR, where possible, the controller

(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)

limited to, security of processing (Article 32(1) GDPR) and the general principles of processing set out in Article 5 GDPR. In confirming the above interpretation

specific rules. Article 82 GDPR introduces a right to compensation for damage caused as a result of an infringement of the GDPR. Article 82(1) contains the

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. 1. Below

violates Article 32 GDPR. Retaining personal data of an applicant for a lease after another applicant has been selected also violates Article 5(1)(e) GDPR

to the data. The infringement of Article 32 of the GDPR led to a €10,000 fine (RON 48,748). The infringement of Article 3 of Law 506/2004 led to a fine

least one of the conditions set out in Article 6(1) GDPR? On the topic of non-material damages 4) Does Article 82(1) GDPR have a specific or general preventive

required under the GDPR (e.g. from a security perspective under Article 32 GDPR or as a means of data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) can get confused

pursuant to article 32(1) of the GDPR. The AP disagrees. The conclusion of the AP that OLVG does not comply with article 32(1) of the GDPR by not meeting

(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

violated Article 6 and Article 32 GDPR. The DPA seems to consider the authentication procedure itself as "processing" and therefore Article 32 GDPR applies

In an Article 60 GDPR procedure, the Danish DPA reprimanded Danske bank for a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. A technical error resulted in the unauthorised

fined € 11.000 Fan Courrier Express SRL for violations of f Article 32 paragraphs (1) and (2) GDPR. The controller Fan Courrier Express SRL was sanctioned

constituted a data breach and were therefore a violation of Article 32(1), and additionally Article 5(1)(f) for violating the confidentiality principle. The AEPD

Finnish DPA found a healthcare provider to have breached Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR for not implementing appropriate technical and organisational

Jurisdiction: Croatia Relevant Law: Article 32(1)(b) GDPR Article 32(1)(d) GDPR Article 32(2) GDPR Article 32(4) GDPR Type: Complaint Outcome: Upheld Started:

level of security appropriate to the risk of processing according to Article 32(1) GDPR? The ANSPDCP found that the controller did not implement adequate

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

regarding the security of processing, respectively art. 32 para. (4) in conjunction with art. 32 para. (1) and para. (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation

Norge violated Article 33 GDPR by failing to notify the Datatilsynet of the data breach? Had Telenor Norge violated Article 32(1) GDPR by failing to implement

that the controller had breached its obligations under Articles 5(1)(f), as well as 32(1) and (2). As a consequence, the ANSPDCP issued an administrative

there was a personal data breach pursuant to Article 4(12) GDPR. Moreover, it stated that Article 32(1) GDPR obliges controllers to take appropriate technical

reason, claimed that she shall receive the medical report under the veil of GDPR. The Cypriot Office of the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection disagreed

concluded that the controller violated Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(d), Article 32(2), and Article 32(4) GDPR. Therefore, the DPA decided to impose a

garden. The decision found that the HSE infringed Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1) of the GDPR by failing to implement appropriate technical and organisational

in accordance with the rules in the Data Protection Regulation [1], Article 32 (1). 1. Below is a more detailed review of the case and a justification

activities further violated Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR. Accordingly, the DPA, in accordance with its powers under Article 58 (2) GDPR, imposed an administrative

provisions of Article 32 paragraph (4) in conjunction with Article 32 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the GDPR, as well as of Article 33 paragraph (1) of the

that Cyprus Police was responsible for a violation of Article 32 par.1(b) & (d) and par.(4) GDPR, as a result of the acts and/or omissions of the Police

Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) fined leasing company €15,000 for violation of Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR after investigating a data breach reported by the company, where

this data breach a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR? The AEPD concluded that there was no violation of Article 32(1) GDPR, because the company had implemented

€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 security

violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and proved the ineffectivness of the controller's employee compliance training, in violation of Article 32 GDPR. The DPA

SE Register Center 15 thousand. A fine of EUR 1 million was imposed for infringements of Article 32 (1) (b) and (c) of the BDAR, ie failure to ensure

6 November 2020, has processed personal data in violation of Article 32(1) 1 of the GDPR by sending sensitive personal data to the complainant in an e-mail

infringement of article 32.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the RGPD, a fine of € 3,000 (three thousand euros), in accordance with article 73.g) of

assessed if it ensured an appropriate level of security under Articles 32(1) and 32(2) GDPR. The DPA held that the controller did not make a proper risk assessment

data. Hence, it considered Article 32(1)(a), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(d) GDPR to be breached. Pursuant to Article 82(2) GDPR, the DPA took several aggravating

organizational measures when processing personal data, as requested by Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR. This implied a risk for the security of the personal data of

implement sufficient security measures, in breach of Articles 32 (1) b), d) and 32 (2) GDPR. NN Pensii Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat

accomodation via its web form and via e-mail, acting contrary to Article 13(1) GDPR and Article 13(2) GDPR. Further, the AZOP held that the controller failed to adopt

administrative bodies, researchers and physicians in violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. Uppsala regional authorities notified the Swedish DPA (Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten

data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. Article 32 of the RGPD "Security of treatment", establishes that: "1. Taking into account the state

subject pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, for a theft of their personal identity and financial data, because it violated Article 32(1) GDPR which led to a data

judicial remedy against the controller under Article 79(1) GDPR. Having said that, Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR make it clear that national courts must assess

personal data did not comply with the rules of Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 (f) and Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. First

certain level of security. Therefore, they did not find a violation of Article 32(1) and decided not to fine the controller. Share your comments here! Share

violation of articles 5.1.f, of the RGPD -as set out in Article 83(5)(a) of the said regulation and 5(1)(f) in relation to Article 32(1)(b) and (c) - specified

implemented sufficient technical and organisational measures pursuant to Article 32 GDPR in relation to the leakage of pupils personal data to third-parties

could not be considered appropriate in accordance with Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR regarding the online appointment booking system. As a result

83(4)(a) GDPR in conjunction with [Article 32(1) GDPR. Article 32 (1) GDPRby failing, at least with gross negligence, to ensure processes for sufficient authentication

of for shredding. 4.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation Pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, the data controller

address. The Romanian DPA found a violation of Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(2) and Article 32(4) of the GDPR and fined SC Medicover SRL €2,000. Share your

violation of Article 32 GDPR, the "Security of processing". More specifically, the controller violated Article 32(1)(b), 32(2), and 32(4) GDPR. For its breaches

violating Article 32 GDPR. The DPA took also the corrective measure to order the operator to bring its processing operations into compliance with the GDPR according

breach of Article 32? The DPA concluded that the municipality had breached the required information security requirements as per Article 32(1)(b), cf. Article

subsequent violations of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and of the principle of accountability as foreseen in Article 5(2) GDPR read in conjunction

the rules on e.g. data protection. It follows from Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, that data controllers and data processors, taking

data. Hence, the controller violated Articles 32(1)(b) and 32(2) GDPR. Pursuant to its Article 58(2) GDPR statutory powers, the DPA ordered the controller

of approximately €150,000 (1,600,000 SEK) on the University Hospital Board for the violation of Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1) GDPR. The data breach notification

would have been required by Article 29 GDPR. Moreover, in violation of Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(2), and Article 34(4) GDPR, the controller had not implemented

obligation of Article 32 GDPR? Does the fact that this health data is not encrypted constitute a breach of the security obligation under Article 32 GDPR? Does

Online Levante, S.L.: for the infringement of Article 5(1)(f), €2,000. for the infringement of Article 32(1), €1,000. Share your comments here! Share blogs

Asesoria Alpi Clua: for the infringement of Article 5(1)(f), €2,000. for the infringement of Article 32(1), €1,000. Share your comments here! Share blogs

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

Articles 5(1)(a), (d) and (f), 9 and 32(1)(b) GDPR.” Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i), the DPA hence imposed an administrative fine as per Article 83(4) and

the combined provisions of article 32, paragraph 1, subparagraphs b) and d) and article 83, paragraph 4, al.a), of the GDPR, with a fine of € 0.00 to €

highly sensitive personal data exposed, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2), cf. Article 24. An employee in a municipal health care center

for infringement of Article 32 (1) lit. a DSGVO [German Penal Code]. (Storage of unhashed passwords) here: Fine notice Enclosure: 1 transfer form, cash

life and health. 5.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, that the data controller

(possible) fraud. This resulted in a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 8 of the Dutch Personal Data Protection

considered appropriate in accordance with Article 31(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to identify

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

A., with NIF A28157360, for a violation of article 32.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4, a) of the GDPR, with a fine of €40,000 (forty thousand euros)

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

title of documents containing sensitive information was a breach of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, highlighting that the breach was reported to the municipality by

which led to a (sensitive) data breach, in violation of Article 32(1) and Article 32(2) GDPR In Oktober 2019, a malicious third party gained unauthorized

processing special categories of data, cf. Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d), Article 24 and Article 35, cf. Article 5. In May 2019, a municipality reported

the lack of security routines, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) cf. Article 5 GDPR, Article 35 and Article 24(1), respectively. Teachers at two junior high

principle, namely the breaches of articles 5-1-c), 5 -1 e), 13, 32 and 35-1 of the GDPR; no breach of Article 6 of the GDPR and of Directive 2002/58 / EC of the

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)

provisions of Regulation art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32 sec. 1 and 2. In addition, by letters of

as established in article 5 of the GDPR. The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. III The GDPR defines personal

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

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

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

responsibility under Article 26 GDPR. Categories of data subjects and categories of personal data Pursuant to Article 30 (I) (1) (c) GDPR, a list must contain

failed to comply with the requirements of Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR. In particular: 6.12.1 Article 32(1)(b) GDPR required Ticketmaster to ensure the ongoing

controller violated Article 5(1)(d) GDPR ("accuracy"), but a more natural conclusion would be to find a violation of Article 32(1)(d) GDPR ("adoption of adequate

measures when recording group sessions in violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32(1) GDPR. The controller is Men Overcoming Violence Ireland ("MOVE")

DPA found no violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. The elements that the DPA took into account to exclude the existence of a GDPR infringement were the following

The Danish DPA found that the Høje-Taastrup Municipality violated Article 32(1) GDPR because it did not have guidelines or objective criteria in place

requirements of article 24 and 32, paragraph 1, AVG and further elaborated in article32, paragraph2, preamble, FISHOrdinancesBIO standards5.1.1,5.1.1.1and5.1.2.1.

wall. The DPA held that the controller violated Article 32(1) GDPR. The obligation under Article 32(1) GDPR to implement appropriate technical and organisational

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

Romanian DPA found that the controller had violated Articles 32(1)(b), 32(1)(d) and 32(2) GDPR, as they had failed to implement adequate technical and organisational

implement appropriate technical and organisational measures pursuant to Article 32(1) GDPR applies equally to controllers and processors. As the Controller identified

in Article 5 GDPR. One of these principles is the requirement of security under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR (‘integrity and confidentiality’). Article 32 GDPR