Search results

monitoring purposes need to be specified for every surveillance camera in use and "[v]ideo surveillance based on the mere purpose of 'safety' or 'for your safety'

respects the GDPR as well as the specific conditions laid down in Chapter V. The same conditions must also be met for onward transfers to further third

Commisson v Germany; Case C-614/10, Commission v Austria; and Case C-288/12, Commission v Hungary. See CJEU, case C-518/07 - Commission v Germany, paragraph

this Regulation and of measures taken in accordance with Article 58(2); and (v) fulfil any other tasks related to the protection of personal data. 2. Each

matter is largely clarified by the CJEU now. Case Law: In C-487/21 - F.F. v DSB, the CJEU clarified that the right to a copy under Article 15(3) GDPR entails

14 TPG (German Organ Transplant Law). § 284 and § 285 SGB V (German Social Insurance Code V)

(rights of the data subject), CHAPTER IV (controller and processor), CHAPTER V (transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations)

3rd Edition). CJEU in case C-288/2012 - Commission v Hungary, paragraphs 53 to 59. Case C‑424/15, Garai v Administración del Estado, paragraph 52. Polenz

carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household

“European Court of  Human Rights, 14  September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. The Netherlands, EC:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, margin number 83: “Further

available'. This provision, together with the others contained in Chapter V, thus contributes to the transfer of personal data in a globalised economy

protection that should be achieved is promoted and delimited in Chapter V of the GDPR. Chapter V of the GDPR creates a three-tiered structure for legal bases for

shall examine, in particular, the application and functioning of: (a) Chapter V on the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations

Furthermore, this choice must be seen in light of Case C-614/10, Commission v Austria. Here, the ECJ established that a supervisory authority's staff could

Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, 2009, §§ 114-115; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], 2011, §§ 301-304 and 319; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], 2012

University Press 2020). CJEU, Commission v Germany, C-518/07, margin number 23 (available here); CJEU, Commission v. Austria, C-614/10, margin number 37 (available

is particularly sensitive, privacy should trump transparency. In C-439/19 B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima the CJEU held that ‘in light [of]… the sensitivity

Articles 6 to 9 GDPR, or the lack of a valid transfer mechanism under Chapter V GDPR. It further includes violations of delegated acts and implementing acts

ensure democratic control and transparency. Case law: The CJEU in Commission v Germany, considered tha the obligation of independent SAs to regularly submit

other mechanism of Chapter V can be applied. As explained by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), the mechanism in Chapter V acts as a layer structure

CJEU - C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law:

of Article 3 and the provisions on international transfers as per Chapter V of the GDPR The GDPR does not provide a definition of 'establishment' for the

exercise of their powers. The CJEU clarified, in Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission, that information will be considered confidential if it fulfils

processors (Article 28); safeguards surrounding international transfer(s) (Chapter V); prior consultation (Article 36). risks to the rights and freedoms of data

Passenger Name Records. The transfers based on other provisions of Chapter V, such as adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses and binding corporate

of dispute resolution. This reading is supported by the Court in Commission v Germany, which interpreted the phrase “complete independence” in the context

number 2 (C. H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition) citing CJEU, C-193/18, Google LLC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 13 June 2019 (available here), and CJEU, C-142/18

first take place before the Small Claims Court. The EWCA in Open Rights Group v Secretary of State for the Home Department helpfully summarised the approach

transfers to third countries or international organisations under Chapter V of the GDPR (Article 44 et seq. GDPR). The GDPR only requires that a SA is

exchange of information and best practices between the supervisory authorities; (v) promote common training programmes and facilitate personnel exchanges between

Article 30, margin number 19 (C.H.Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). CJEU, C-154/21, RW v Österreichische Post, 12 January 2023, among the others, margin number 24 (available

ensuring compliance with data transfer requirements for third countries (Chapter V), and organizing communication with data subjects and supervisory authorities

transfers to non-EU/EEA countries ('third countries') can be found in Chapter V of the GDPR. Example: When a Czech controller is storing personal data with

identified; (iv) how serious the consequences of the breach are to individuals; (v) whether individuals affected are particularly vulnerable; (vi) whether the

The CJEU issued its first judgment on non-material damages under Article 82 GDPR. It was ruled that there is no threshold for non-material damages for

international organisations, taking into account the provisions of Chapter V of the GDPR. If the instructions by the controller "do not allow for transfers

CJEU - C-487/21 F.F. v DSB Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 15(3) GDPR Decided: 04.05.2023 Parties: DSB (Austria) Case Number/Name:

CJEU - C-154/21 RW v Österreichische Post Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 12(5)(b) GDPR Article 15(1)(c)

application of Chapter V of the GDPR First, it must be verified whether the first respondent is subject to the obligations standardized in Chapter V of the Regulation

Cases C‑92/09 and C‑93/09, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, paragraph 86, 9. November 2010 (available here). EDPB, ‘Guidelines

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. Planet49 GmbH Case Number/Name: C-673/17 Planet49 European Case Law Identifier:

CJEU - C-251/21 Meta Platforms and Others v Bundeskartellamt Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 6 GDPR Article 9 GDPR Article

20 June 2007, p. 4 (available here). European Court of Human Rights. Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95. For example as a consumer, patient, employee

used to achieve this are identified and summarised in R (Open Rights Group) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 800, [2021] 1 WLR

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

was first outlined in Thorburn v Sunderland City Council in 2002 and reiterated in HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, R (ex parte) v The Secretary of State for Transport

to ensure that additional measures were put in place to comply with Chapter V of the GDPR, such as encryption of the personal data. The Municipality claimed

Austrian DPA alleging that the controller breached the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

Directive committed up to the date when that Directive was repealed (§104). V. In the fifth place, the Court recognized the direct effect of the provision

provisions of the GDPR shall not be interpreted in broader terms the Titles V and VI of the EU Treaty/Treaty of Lisbon and, in any case, border than the

Irving v Post Office [1987] IRLR 289, Weddall v Barchester Healthcare [2012] EWCA Civ 25, Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica [2004] UKPC 47, Brown v Robinson

The CJEU ruled that consent is not valid if a contract contains a clause stating that the data subject has been informed of, and has consented to, the

CJEU - C-667/21 ZQ v Medical Service of Health Insurance North Rhine Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(f) GDPR Article

Chamber),composed of D. Spielmann, President, V. Valančius (Rapporteur) and R. Mastroianni, Judges,Registrar: V. Di Bucci,having regard to the written part

Cecilie Tandberg Hallan - for trial) against the State v / Personvernnemnda (Government Advocate v / lawyer Stein-Erik Jahr Dahl). Author Judges Erik Thyness

data to the US in violation of Chapter V of the GDPR. At the same time, the supervisory authority ruled that Chapter V of the GDPR sets out obligation only

Judgment In the legal dispute of Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e. V., represented by its board Wolfgang Schuldzinski, Mintropstraße 27, 40215 Düsseldorf

Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González 7 CJEU, 24 September 2019, C-507/17, Google LLC v Commission nationale

Arr. R.v.St. 1992, z.p.; Not. 1995, IV, 21; BREED. 1992, z.p. 15Compare with: Council of State., 3 June 1993, n.v. Syndicaat Machiensteen en n.v. Swenden

header and url-encoded parameters: https://www.google-analytics.com/collect? v=1&_v=j83&a=1005550321&t=pageview&_s=1&dl=https%3A%2F %2Fwww.rae.es%2F&ul=en-

W. v. Germany, Judgment of 28 June 2018, nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10, §§ 104, 105; on the significance of identifying reporting, see also ECHR, F. v. Germany

its veracity; (v) the content, form and consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application

information]; on § 10 HMG HessVGH, Urt. v. 30.10.1990 - 11 UE 3005/89 - ESVGH 41, 105; VG Frankfurt a.M., Urt. v. 29.07.2011 - 5 K 156/11.F - juris; to

exemption despite the ECHR's Decision of the case Papageorgiou and Others v. Greece that convicted the latter for the violation of the right to education

personal data on their website. This position is repeated in G.C. & Others v. CNIL (section 52). Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

explain that the procedure regulated in § 21 DSAG LSA is not transparent i . S.v. Art. 53 Para. 2 GDPR is. The procedure itself is in this respect simple law

until Helsingør Municipality could demonstrate that the rules in Chapter V of the Data Protection Regulation had been observed. The ban and suspension

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) 02/08/2000, Bergens Tidende and others v. Norway, section 51. The Data Inspectorate apparently distinguishes between

SC C&V Water Control SA for failing to provide information to the DPA during the investigation. The Romanian DPA required information from C C&V Water

The Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) conducted an investigation into ING Bank N.V. Amsterdam – Bucharest Branch, following a personal data breach notification, and

The Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) imposed a €3000 fine on ING Bank N.V. Amsterdam – Bucharest Branch for unlawfully processing the personal data of a natural

for an 'average reader'. This is an appeal of the earlier case T‑384/20 - OC v European Commission. The claimant (OC) appealed the general court’s decision

EWHC - Sanso Rondon v LexisNexis Risk Solutions UK Ltd (2021) EWHC 1427 (QB) (28 May 2021) QB-2020-002788 Court: EWHC (UK) Jurisdiction: United Kingdom

reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding. In HMRC -v- Fairford Group (in liquidation) and Fairford Partnership Group (in liquidation)

CJEU - Case C-496/17 Deutsche Post AG v. Hauptzollamt Köln Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 4(2) GDPR Article 5(1)(b) GDPR

CJEU - T-709/21 WhatsApp Ireland v European Data Protection Board Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 4(1) GDPR Article 12(1)

The Advocate General Campos Sanchez-Bordona considered that the restriction imposed by Hungary on the financing of civil organisation from abroad is not

The Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe issued his opinion on the Bundesgerichtshof’s (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) request for a preliminary ruling

reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding. In HMRC -v- Fairford Group (in liquidation) and Fairford Partnership Group (in liquidation)

The English High Court held that Lloyds Bank Plc complied with Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA 1998") by providing adequate responses

The United Kingdom High Court held that the Metropolitan Police unlawfully retained the personal data of a minor in breach of the ECHR and the UK Data

CJEU - C‑37/20 and C‑601/20, WM and Sovim SA v Luxembourg Business Registers Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1) GDPR Article

against unauthorised leaks.” The High Court was referred to Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc for guidelines on the application of ‘ensures

the meaning of 'instigate' in light of the judgment in Microsoft Corporation v McDonald and held that the FTT was right to find that Eldon's involvement with

The territorial scope of the right to be forgotten in the context of search engine operators is limited to the versions of the search engines corresponding

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales found the Immigration Exception in the DPA 2018, which excludes the application of certain GDPR rights and principles

JudgmentLEWIS Stadler v Currys Group Limited 13. The approach to strike out applications under the first limb was summarised in Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers

CJEU - Case C‑264/19 Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC and Google Inc. Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 8(2)(a)

C-46/23 Budapest Főváros IV. Kerület Újpest Önkormányzat Polgármesteri Hivatala v. Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság Court: CJEU Jurisdiction:

relation to matters proceeding in open court: Khuja v Times Newspapers Limited [2017] UKSC 49 and HMRC v Banerjee [2009] EMLR 24.
 
 
 7 The Claimant's

judgment is delivered: defendant: V. V., V. to the defender: T. R., V. prosecutor: G. V., U. department ..., Department ... V. letterbox-here

protection working group in accordance with Article 29 on "Google Spain and Inc v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González”

(on the irrefutability of a conclusion in this area, see last BGH, judgment v. v. 2.7.2019 - VI ZR 494/17, NJW 2019, 453; see also Senate, judgment of 7.6

TransaviaAirlinesC.V.has made agreements with sister companyTransaviaFranceS.A.S if TransaviaFranceS.A.SusesthesystemsofTransaviaAirlinesC.V.througha ServiceLevelAgreement

personal data. v. The Internet user makes a choice in the user interface. vi. The CMP generates the TC String and places a euconsent-v2 cookie on the user's

original. Please refer to the Slovenian original for more details. VSL Decision V Kp 9267/2022JedroThe Court of Appeal notes that the court of first instance

distinguished Dunn v Durham County Council [2003] 1 WLR 2305, Lin & Anor v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 2484 and Kololo v Metropolitan

see Warby J in Sube v NGN [2020] EWHC 1125 (QB), [2020] EMLR 25 at H8 (see also, Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin) and Hayden v Dickinson [2020] EWHC