Search results

regulation, and see Article 6(3) as a clause that sets out concrete requirements for this regulation. Finally, another group of authors that does not see these requirements

Article 35 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck, 36th edition). See Körffer, in Paal, Pauly, GDPR BDSG, Article 58 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2021)

between states, see WP29, Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data, 20 June 2007, p. 23 (available here). See Recital 27 sentence 1 GDPR. See Recital 27

the factual requirements are met and there are no grounds for exemptions (see below). The assessment must be conducted without delay and its outcome promptly

involved, which systems are used, etc.), and the purposes of the processing. See commentary on Article 24 GDPR. Finally, controllers and processors should

The provision lists a non-exhaustive set of criteria to carry out the task (see below). The SA must first decide whether to impose a fine at all. This follows

further details on the various legal bases for processing personal data please see the commentary on Article 6(1) GDPR. Example: The newly appointed data protection

In this sense, this agreement could not be concluded by email. See, Martini, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 27, margin numbers 17-20 (C.H.Beck 2021

teleological reading fulfils the requirements already stipulated by Article 47 CFR (see below for more on what constitutes an effective judicial remedy under Article

witness whistle-blower from retaliation, or conversely, the latter might see their right of access restricted to respect the privacy and data protection

3rd edition); Körffer in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 78 GDPR, margin numbers 3-5, (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd edition). See Recital 143, sentence 7 GDPR:

GDPR. The controller also has to consider the purposes of the processing. See the commentary on Article 5(1)(b) GDPR for more details on the purpose of

follows from Article 25(2). The addressee of the provision is the controller. See the commentary under paragraph 1 for more details on this point. To ensure

C‑673/17, para 47). See Bergt in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 81 GDPR, margin number 7 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). See Bergt in Kühling, Buchner

requested SA to communicate the results of the request or, if not possible (see paragraph 2 above), at least an update on the progress of the procedure, in

individuals and their rights under the GDPR see also CJEU C-293/12 - Digital Rights Ireland, paragraph 68, available here. See Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker

number 4 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). See, Articles 3(4) and 4 Collective Redress Directive (EU) 2020/1828. See Moos, Schefzig in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO

information is still "intelligible". For unfounded or excessive request, see also paragraph 5 below. The requirement for clear and plain language means

security policy of the Union” is also excluded from the scope of the Regulation (see subsection (b) below). Article 2(2)(b) excludes the applicability of the GDPR

judicial review (see commentary to Article 78 GDPR). Handling of a complaint should be performed within a reasonable period of time (see also Article 77(2)

the video to- next out of focus and from second 0:11 in full-body shot to see how she in a car that reads "We are looking for nurses" and an audio Overlay

German Original Source: Justiz-Online NRW (in German) Initial Contributor: pau.see

issues, the BVwG issued a separate decision (see here). 2) The CJEU has already assigned a case number: C-487/21 (see here and here). Share blogs or news articles

a concrete negative impact on its legal position in the award procedure (see Müller, in: MüKoEuWettbR, 4th ed. 2022, VgV § 8, marginal no. 49). cc. With

"punitive damages" (see in detail Spitzer, ÖJZ 2019/76, 629 [635 f]; also Frenzel in Paal/Pauly, DSGVOBDSG3 Art 82 DSGVO Rz 10; see also OLG Innsbruck MR

can only be Article 6 (1) sentence 1 lit e) DSGVO (see b) or Article 6 (1) sentence 1 lit f) DSGVO (see c), the requirements of which, however, the Senate

"punitive damages" (see in detail Spitzer, ÖJZ 2019/76, 629 [635 f]; also Frenzel in Paal/Pauly, DSGVOBDSG3 Art 82 DSGVO Rz 10; see also OLG Innsbruck MR

requirements for creating an appropriate standard of data security in general mine (see 3.). The requirements of Art. 32 GDPR are therefore at the disposal of the

allowed in this regard - see below - the plaintiff is free to have the decision reviewed by the Federal Court of Justice (see Cologne Higher Regional Court

Germany for the registry offices (see Baumann, StAZ 1968, 337 f.), but not - as here - for registration authorities (see VG Stuttgart, decision of 18.08

have an absolute binding effect (see also the Court's judgment of 14 February 2019 - C-345/17, NVwZ 2019, 465 para. 58), see ECJ of 19 June 2014 - C-345/13

outside of F *****" you can see the companies that have sent data, but not which data the companies have sent; you can't see the raw data either. [94] A

advertising content for you. By suppressing marketing cookies, you will continue to see the same amount of advertising, but it may be less relevant to you. For more

statutory judge within the meaning of Article 101.1 sentence 2 of the Basic Law (see BVerfGE 73, 339 <366>; 82, 159 <192>; 126, 286 <315>; 128, 157 <186 et seq

of personal data? Concerning the appeal against decisions 1, 3, 4 and 5 (see above: "Decisions by the Austrian Data Protection Authority"), the BVwG had

plaintiff's interest in the coveted conviction to be at least € 2,000.00 (see OLG Stuttgart GRUR-RS 2021, 20480). 9 2. The proceedings were not to be suspended

law that such an effort can stand in the way of a request for information (see ECJ, judgment of 19.10.2016, C 582/14). On the one hand, the defendant does

another court as being prejudicial for the present proceedings is irreversible (see VwGH 13.9.2017, Ra 2017/12/0068). Catchwords Request for information Suspension

have an absolute binding effect (see also the Court's judgment of 14 February 2019 - C-345/17, NVwZ 2019, 465 para. 58), see ECJ of 19 June 2014 - C-345/13

these provisions inapplicable in lack of an opening clause under the GDPR (see W211 2210458-1 and here). Hence the DSB only assesed the lawfulness of processing

judgment - see 6 Ob 63/21i (in German). On 03.09.2021, the Austrian Federal Administrative Court also stayed a procedure on the same issue - see W211 2230221-1

aim at processing in accordance with the provisions of the DPA (see Martini in Paal/Pauly, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung [2017], Art. 32 para. 28). This security

rules of the GDPR and the principles anchored therein have not been violated (see the decision of October 31, 2018, GZ DSB-D123.076 / 0003-DSB / 2018). According

so that Section 1 (1) DSG does not apply at all. But even if one were to see an application of § 1 DSG, the complaint would not be successful: The (simple

later than within one month, see Kühling / Buchner / Bäcker, 3rd edition 2020, GDPR Art. 14 marginal no. 33; Paal / Pauly / Paal / Hennemann, 3rd edition

specific (see 1.). The defendant's new submission, which she made in the grounds of appeal, must be taken into account in this respect (see 2.). The fact

legal remedies to the notification in the final decision of October 5, 2020 (see Art. 77 Para. 2 DS- GMO). Paragraph 19 b) It is disputed whether a further

one of the objectives listed in a taxonomy and meet certain requirements (see only Haidinger in Knyrim, DatKomm, Art 23 Vorheriger SuchbegriffDSGVONächster

lawfulness of a 10 year storage period is not relevant for the case at hand (see margin number 21 of the judgment:"In the present case - as already stated

weighed up. See Paal, in: Paal / Pauly (ed.), General Data Protection Regulation / Federal Data Protection Act, 2nd edition 2018, Art. 23 marg. 31; see also Peuker

Art 58 (2) GDPR (see Art 83 GDPR, which in its (3) and (4) summarises the possible infringements in connection with data processing; see also Art 83(3) GDPR

the costs are to be decided in this respect in accordance with § 91a ZPO (see 3. below). 2. The appeal is unfounded. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim

statement by the defendant's legal representative dated 18 October 2018 (see sheets 19 - 21 of the Federal Law Gazette) in the proceedings mentioned at

should be possible with a view to the legitimate enforcement of rights. (see Paal/Pauly GDPR on Art. 9 Rn 37) Necessity for the purpose only exists if the task

material, which had not been further processed, must enable the data subject to see the form in which all personal data concerning him or her were held by the

- albeit regularly rather minor - breach of data protection (see Körffer, in: Paal/Pauly, DS-GVO/BDSG, 2nd edition 2018, Art. 58, marginal 18; Selmayr

information in connection with journalistic activities on the other hand (see only ECJ C-73/07, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, ECLI:EU:C:2008:727

employment and sick leave are stored, which all employees of the station could see. In particular, the state commissioner considered the disclosure of health

assessments, provided that it is information “about” the person in question . "(See the judgment of the ECJ of December 20, 2017, C-434/16 [Nowak]). These considerations

everything to be done to correct the breach of duty and had not been able to see that this had not been directly implemented by the credit agency. According

Bavarian administrative court in Ansbach is responsible (see 1.), is admissible (see 2.) and justified (see 3.). a legal person and a supervisory authority of

sentence 1 DSG NRW (see 1., 2.) and is not excluded by other legal provisions (see 3.) or limited within the meaning of Art. 23 DSGVO (see 4.). The claim is

by way of injunction and that such claims are not blocked by Art. 79 GDPR (see also LG Frankfurt a.M., Judgement v. 13.09.2018 - 2-03 O 283/18, ZD 2018,

version 08/12/2020 (VWA./04, see point II.2), the HAR data of the Website visit (VWA ./05, see point II.2), the XXXX (VWA ./06, see point II.2) and a certificate

3rd ed. 2020 Rn. 20, DS-GVO Art. 83 Rn. 20; Ebner/Schmidt, CCZ 2020, 84; see also resolution of 03. 04.2019 of the 97th DSK "Companies are liable for data

or court proceedings for the person concerned on behalf of a third party (see, inter alia, Werkmeister in: Gola, General Data Protection Regulation, 2nd

outside of F *****" you can see the companies that have sent data, but not which data the companies have sent; you can't see the raw data either. [94] A

the tenor. It is only partially permissible (see 1. below), but in this respect it is also justified (see 2. below). 44 1. To the extent that the plaintiff

Schaffland/Holthaus, in: Schaffland/Wiltfang, DS-GVO/BDSG, status: August 2022, Art. See also Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, judgment of October 28, 2021 - 16 U

law is overridden in this respect by Article 82(6) of the GDPR (see Frenzel in Paal/Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, 3rd ed. 2021, Art. 82 of the GDPR, para. 18). margin

that infringes this Regulation"). However, the CJEU has held multiple times (see e.g. C-136/04, Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH, par. 32 or C-134/08, Tyson Parketthandel

provisions of the E. contain a full regulation, also on employee data protection (see LAG Baden-Württemberg December 20, 2018 - 17 Sa 11/18 - marginal 172) . A

the unrefuted risk of repetition (see 1 .) and also has a claim against the defendant for the warning costs claimed (see 2.). Furthermore, the lawsuit is

and unbureaucratically (see Bergt, in: Kühling/Buchner, DS-GVO/BDSG, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 77, margin no. 10; Körffer, in: Paal/Pauly, DS-GVO/BDSG, 2nd ed.

to Art. 15 GDPR (N. Härting, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, 2016, para. 684; see also Stollhoff in: Auernhammer, DSGVO/BDSG, 7th ed. 2020, Art. 15 marginal

a general action action and also otherwise admissible (see 1.). However, it is not justified (see 2.). 15th 1. The action is admissible. 16 a) The action

the defendant's duty to publish (see a). The provision of Section 3 (1) No. 15 HmbTG is compatible with the Basic Law (see b)). An inadmissibility of the

BVerwG, judgment of September 30, 2015 - 6 C 38.14 - BVerwGE 153, 89 para. 10; see also Meents/Hinzpeter in: Taeger/Gabel, DSGVO - BDSG - TTDSG, 4th edition

- albeit regularly rather minor - breach of data protection (see Körffer, in: Paal/Pauly, DS-GVO/BDSG, 2nd ed. 2018, Art. 58, marginal 18; Selmayr, in:

directed at the determination of the validity or invalidity of a provision (see BVerwG, judgement of 28 January 2010 - 8 C 19.09 -, BVerwGE 136, 54 <57>=

regularly also covers pending proceedings from the time it comes into force. 39 See BVerwG, decision of December 6, 1982 - 9 B 3520/82 - juris Rn. 8. 40This distinguishes

2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89 -131, hereinafter: JI Directive) applicable (see letter a). The right to omission of data processing is not excluded by Art

in § 3 Para. 1 BDSG old version), i.e. not files or collections of files (see recital 15 to the GDPR). 90 (1.3) The term "personal data" is interpreted

damage, taking into account all the circumstances, based on free conviction, see BAG, judgment of May 5, 2022 - 2 AZR 363/21 -, juris para. 12 et seq.; Quaas

personal data if certain reasons are met. We have checked the reasons and see no basis for the deletion of the personal data stored by us. We keep a minimum

data, because the IP address enables the precise identification of users (see ECJ, judgment of 19.10.2016 - C-582/14; BGH, judgment of 16.5.2017 - VI ZR

para. 4 (s Art. 15 margin no. 49), Art. 20 para. 4 (see Art. 20 margin no. 28), Art. 21 para. 1 (see Art. 21 margin no. 42) and Art. 23 para. 1 lit i (s

dated May 31, 2019, the defendant informed the plaintiff that he did not see any violation of data protection law in the behavior complained about, so

DS-GVO. There would be a loss of discretion, since the defendant does not even see that the scope for discretion of Art. 58 DS-GVO is also open to the exercise

2021 (see point I.3), ./10 - Supplementary statement of the MB of August 22, 2021 (see point I.3), ./11 - Notice of the DA of 09/01/2021 (see point I

Letter c, GDPR is in any case an obligation based on objective law, see Frenzel in Paal /Pauly, General Data Protection Regulation Art. 6, paragraph 16), which

other (see Jahnel, Commentary on GDPR, Art. 5 Rz 9 and Art 13 Rz 40; Herbst in Kühling / Buchner (Hrsg), DSGVO² Art 5 Rz 11; Frenzel in Paal / Pauly, DS-GVO

24, 2020 (see point I.12), ./20 - Notification of the bB of December 21, 2020 (see point I.13 ), ./21 - Complaint by BF1 of 01/25/2021 (see point I.14)

court considered them as third parties. How control numbers are generated: See manual of cancer registration in German (Pages 96-98): https://www.basisdatensatz

least one of which was located in Austria (see point 1 of the findings). ), at least one of which is in Austria (see point 1 of the findings). According to

Celle substantially diverged from the prevailing German case law at the time (see OLG Köln - 20 U 295/21, OLG Dresden - 4 U 1905/21, LG Krefeld - 2 O 448/20)

case law report on labor law -NZA-RR- 2021, 410 para 45; Paal, in: Paal/Pauly, DS-GVO, 3rd edition 2021, Article 15, paragraph 33; Franck, in: Gola, General

by the standard of Union fundamental rights and the DS-GVO (for the whole see Gersdorf ZfWG 2021, special supplement 1/2021, 19 ( 20 et seq.); cf. BeckOK

the Basic Law. The provision was arbitrary, since it was not possible to see on what basis the concrete numerical determinations were based. In addition

in § 3 Para. 1 BDSG old version), i.e. not files or collections of files (see recital 15 to the GDPR). (1.3) The concept of "personal data" is interpreted