Search results

accordance with Article 77, GDPR in conjunction with Paragraph 24, DSG on February 24, 2023. 1.4. The data protection authority then initiated a complaint procedure

OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, p. 1, Section 1 Para. 1 and 2 of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Federal Law Gazette I No. 165/1999 as amended: Article 4, Article

2, Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. However, in the absence of a corresponding catalog of exceptions for the DSG, according to Section 4 this is very applicable

according to Art. 83 Para. 4 GDPRArticle 83, Paragraph 4, GDPR). Pursuant to Article 83 Paragraph 4Article 83, Paragraph 4, GDPR, in the case of the violations

already been implemented by Section 30 (2) DSG, because this is based on the action of some person. Section 30 (2) DSG effects an investigative standard that

vwgh.gv.at Ro 2021/04/0030-4 to 0031-5 March 6, 2024 17 of 40 4. Determination of the violation of the right to information 25 4.1. In its ruling point A)I

professional secrecy, is required. 4. In the matter The Respondent relies on § 19 4. 4. COVID-19-SchuMaV in conjunction with § 8 para. 4 COVID-19-MG. It is therefore

(paragraph one, DSG) and interest in secrecy of the first respondent, a legal entity, is offset by the legal mandate under paragraph 23, paragraph 2, DSG, whereby

rights under Article 1 GDPR or § 1 DSG, Art. 5 DSGVO or § 37 DSG, Art. 12, 22 and 41 DSGVO and Art. 34 DSGVO or § 56 DSG has been violated. The complainant

(paragraph one, DSG) and interest in secrecy of the first respondent, a legal entity, is offset by the legal mandate under paragraph 23, paragraph 2, DSG, whereby

GDPR), OJ No. L 119 of May 4, 2016, p. 1; §§ 9, 18 paragraph 1 and 24 paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Federal Law Gazette I

dismissed as unfounded. B) The appeal is admissible pursuant to Art. 133 para. 4 B-VG. Text REASONS FOR DECISION: I. Course of proceedings: By data protection

being changed in the middle of proceedings. 1.2 Article 69(4) and (5) of the DSG reads as follows "(4) Proceedings pending before the data protection authority

accordance with Section 24 (5) DSG and was therefore dismissed in accordance with Section 24, Paragraph 5, DSG. Regarding point 4 First of all, it should be

to Article 83 Paragraph 4 GDPR Article 83 Paragraph 4 GDPR applies. Pursuant to Article 83 Paragraph 4Article 83, Paragraph 4, GDPR, in the case of the

the impossibility of applying the provisions of Section 1 (1) and (2) DSG, Art. 4 Z 7 Previous search term GDPR Next search term and Art. 6 Section 1 lit

ical program falls under the definition of "profiling" according to Art. 4(4) GDPR in accordance with the case law of the CJEU in C-634/21. The automatied

Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Art. 83 Paragraph 1 and 4 Letter a GDPR OJ L 2016/119, p. and 4 Litera a, GDPR OJ L 2016/119, p. 1, as amended For these

Act (DPA) 2018. The defendant applied for the claim to be struck out under 3.4(2)(a) and (b) CPR or, alternatively, to grant summary judgement under 24.2

26.1 item 1 of the DSG, which is why the complainant had been granted the status of a public official under Article 26.3 of the DSG. cit. the complainant

GDPR), OJ No. L 119 of May 4, 2016, p. 1; §§ 1, § 18 paragraph 1 and § 24 paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Federal Law Gazette

to overriding interest of the individual behind the business (§ 1(2) DSG, Article 6(4) GDPR). The Information on financial aid for individual entrepreneurs

Act (DSG), Federal Law Gazette I No. 165/1999 as amended: Article 51, paragraph one, Article 57, paragraph one, litera f,, Article 57, paragraph 4, and

conjunction with §§ 8 Para. 1 Z 4 (mainly authorized interests), 8 Para. 3 Z 4 (performance of contract), 6 Para. 1 Z 5 and § 24 DSG 2000 registered became. In

basis: Art. 4, Art. 6 Paragraph 1 lit. f, Art. 51 Paragraph 1, Art. 57 Paragraph 1 lit. Basic Regulation, hereinafter: GDPR), OJ No. L 119 of 4.5.2016 p.

Under Article 4(4) GDPR, this processing of data is considered profiling. According to Austrian data protection law (see Article 1 §2 DSG), processing for

"file system" in Art. 4 No. 6 GDPR. The plaintiff's examination papers also represented personal data within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR. In his judgment

OJ No. L 119 of 4.5.2016 p. 1 ; Paragraphs 18, paragraph one, as well as 24 paragraph one and paragraph 5, of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Federal Law

will expire on May 25, 2018 according to § 72 DSG NRW stepped. Apart from the fact that, according to the DSG NRW old version, the person concerned had no

information in accordance with Art. 13 ff. DSG VO and the right to information in accordance with Art. 15 DSG VO. By withholding the available and relevant

personal data as per Article 4(1) GDPR. Equally so, that processing of such information constitutes profiling under Article 4(4) GDPR. Further, the BVwG considered

publisher, so that he does not fall under the media privilege of Section 9 DSG. The defendant denied and requested that the lawsuit be dismissed for a fee

83 Para. 1 and 4 lit. a GDPR OJ L 2016/119, p. 1, as amended Article 25, Paragraph 1, in conjunction with Article 83, Paragraph 1, and 4 lit. a, GDPR OJ

March 2004 - 7 AV 4/03 -, loc. cit.) An explanation of this reason for admission that satisfies the requirements of § 124 a (4) sentence 4 VwGO requires that

hereinafter: GDPR), OJ. No. L 119 of 4.5.2016 p. 1; §§ 1, 18 para. 1 as well as 24 para. 1 and para. 5 of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Federal Law Gazette I No

meaning of Art. 4 No. 7 DSGVO, and partly by automated means within the meaning of Art. 2(1), Art. 4 No. 2 DSGVO. 72 According to Article 4(2) of the GDPR

inadmissibly processed data deleted. § Section 24 (1), (3), (4) and (5) DSG read: "SECTION 24 DSG Complaint to the data protection authority (1) Every data

Austrian Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz - DSG). First, the BVwG considered the application of § 9(1) DSG, which provides for a broad nonapplication of

before the Federal Administrative Court. Art. 4 Z 1 GDPR reads:Article 4, paragraph one, GDPR reads: Article 4 Definitions For the purposes of this Regulation

with Section 24 DSG is that the data subject receives the information to which he is entitled. This already results from § 24 paragraph 5 DSG according to

practice in the case group breach of law (4 Ob 93/01g on copyright; 4 Ob 169/15d on the right of ownership; 4 Ob 75/16g on interference with a mere possession

rnhofer/Kunnert/Riedl, DSG (2018), page 145). The deviating provision in § 12.4 no. 1 of the DPA on the previous search termDSG of the next search term

Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz - DSG) exempted them from the necessity of a legal basis under Article 6 GDPR (note: Under § 9 DSG, Chapters II to VII and Chapter

personal data in accordance with Article 4, number one, GDPR. 3.2.4. The GDPR defines the term processing in Art. 4 Z 2 GDPR by listing a number of possible

accordance with Article 133, Paragraph 4, B-VG.The revision is permitted in accordance with Article 133, Paragraph 4, B-VG. text Reasons for the decision:

with Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the GDPRLegality of data processing in accordance with Articles 6, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the GDPR    Principle of processing

vested in the controller. (4) The right under paragraph 2 may not affect the rights and freedoms of other persons. Definitions – Art. 4 Z 2 GDPR 2. “Processing”

understood broadly (Hödl in Knyrim, DatKomm Art 4 DSGVO Rz 9; Eßer in Eßer/Kramer/von Lewinski, DSGVO-BDSG6 Art 4 DSGVO Rz 7). [16] 2.1 Therefore, even inner

accordance with Article 133, Paragraph 4, B-VG.The revision is permitted in accordance with Article 133, Paragraph 4, B-VG. text Reasons for the decision:

hereinafter: GDPR), OJ No. L 119 of 4.5 .2016 p. 1; Sections 18 (1) and 24 (1) and (5) of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Federal Law Gazette I No. 165/1999

right to secrecy as follows: - The complaint is rejected. Legal basis: Art. 4 Z 7, Art. 51 Para. 1, Art. 55 Para. 1, Art. 57 Para. 1 lit. f and Art. 77 Para

(General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter: GDPR), OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, p. 1.: Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter c, Article 6, Article 12 Paragraph

pursuant to Art. 133 (4) B-VG. The decision shall be briefly substantiated. The appeal is admissible pursuant to Art. 133 para. 4 B-VG because there is

the accused confirmed that under point 1.4. to have written an obvious answer. All in points 1.1. until 1.4. The findings made were to be regarded as

Article 133 (4) B-VG. The statement must briefly state the reasons for the ruling. The appeal is not admissible under Article 133, paragraph 4 of the Federal

identity in relation to the legal situation according to the DSG 2000: The provision of § 26 DSG 2000 has the clearly recognizable purpose of preventing any

authorities (Taeger/Gabel, DS-GVO, 4th edition 2022, Art. 4 para. 465; Wolff/Brink, BeckOK data protection law, 39 . Edition 2021, Art. 4 GDPR, para. 165). Paragraph

definitions of data processing (Art 4(2)), controller (Art 4(7)), processor (Art 4(8)), recipient (Art 4(9)) and third party (Art 4(10)). In the case of data transfer

2016/679 (data protection Basic Regulation, hereinafter: GDPR), OJ No. L 119 of 4.5.2016 p. 1; REASON A. Submissions of those responsible: 1. In a letter dated

12 para 4 Z1DSG lack of opening clause (W2562214855 and W2112210458). are there decisions after the entry into force of the GDPR that §§ 12f DSG still apply

The data processing in question was profiling within the meaning of Article 4(4) of the GDPR. It is understandable for the average person subject to the law

professional email address would be a personal data pursuant to Art. 4(1) of the previous search termDSG; the same applied to an addition next to the name of the involved

data. According to point 4.4.5., The legal basis for processing is the consent according to Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR Point 4.4.6. Consent is voluntary and

within the meaning of Art. 4 Z. 7 Previous search term GDPR Next search term but as a processor within the meaning of Art. 4 Z. 8 Previous search term GDPR

to Article 133, Paragraph 4 of the Federal Constitution. The revision is not permitted according to Article 133, Paragraph 4 of the Federal Constitution

the whole claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b) under the Jameel jurisdiction; and (c) strike out of the claim in negligence under CPR 3.4(2)(a). 
 
 The Defendant

plaintiff's personal data within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 1 DSGVO, whereby processing within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 2 DSGVO takes place in the form of the collection

procedural act (see only OVG Lüneburg, Order of 11 May 2020 - 4 LA 163/18 -, juris, marginal no. 4; Dolderer, in: Sodan/Ziekow, VwGO, 5th ed. 2018, § 101, marginal

next search term), OJ No. L 119 of 4 May 2016 p. 1; Sections 1, 18 (1) and 24 (1) and (5) of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Federal Law Gazette I No. 165/1999

page within 14 days. The appeal is not admissible pursuant to Art. 133 para. 4 B-VG. Text Grounds for decision: By - lawyer's - complaint to the data protection

of the plaintiff within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 1 DSGVO, whereby the processing within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 2 DSGVO takes place in the form of the

principles of data processing, in particular Art. 5(1)(b) and (c) GDPR and Art. 6(4) GDPR. For each of the legal bases listed in Art. 6 (1) of the GDPR (except

Administrative Court In addition, Art. 4 Z 1 and Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. c and f GDPR are relevant. Art. 4 Z 1 GDPR reads: "Article 4 definitions For the purposes of

*3, commercial register number: *4*8*2r, represented by A*** , B*** & Partner Rechtsanwälte, **** Vienna, ****platz 4*/3, carried out ex officio examination

lodged a complaint with the DSB (Austria). The DSG rejected to handle the complaint under Article 57(4) GDPR - considering it excessive - since there were

Pursuant to section 27 of the Data Protection Act (DSG) as amended (which essentially corresponds to section 39 DSG 2000, which was in force until 24 May 2018)

security in the amount of 110% of the amount to be enforced before enforcement. 4. 4. The appeal is allowed. 5. The amount in dispute is set at €350.00. Facts

already been identified became. The plaintiff's reference to Section 4 Paragraph 4 BDSG in this context is not convincing because, according to the prevailing

2). I.4. On February 18, 2020, BF2 again provided information in accordance with Art. 15 GDPR. This was sent to the Chamber of Labor XXXX (VWA ./4, see

will not be followed. The revision is permissible according to Art. 133 Para. 4 B-VG. text Reasons for the decision: With a complaint using a form from the

HKG ND, Section 85a HKG ND, Section 85a (1) S 1 HKG ND, Section 5 (1) S 2 DSG ND, Section 46 (2) KomWG ND, Section 51 S 2 WahlG ND PROCEDURE VG Stade, 3

Para. 2 lit. Affected establish was made. 4. The following must be recorded for the determination of the sentence: 4.1. According to Art. 83 Para. 1 GDPR,

personal data pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Regulation, citing Section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act and Article 4(1) of the Regulation. With regard

subject on the basis of the factual context (Art. 6 para. 4 letter b DSGVO) (Art. 6 para. 4 letter a DSGVO). Sec. 24.1 No. 1 of the Federal Data Protection

***** gmbh 08/15/2017 December 21, 2017 45.4 0.00 out of court. Operation positive completed i ***** gmbh [4] For the plaintiff's earlier surname ("H *****")

y) as a controller within the meaning of Article 4 No. 7 of the GDPR within the meaning of Article 4 No. 2 of the GDPR, nor is its agent in the proceedings

1 sentence 2 analogous GDPR Art. 2 Para. 2 Letter d, 4 No. 1, 6 Para. 1 Letter e, 79 Para. 1 BayDSG Art. 24 Para. 1 No. 1 and No. 2, 28 Guiding principles:

procedure according to § VWGO § 124a paragraph VWGO § 124A paragraph 4 sentence 4 VwGO requires that the respective applicant deals with the content of

Art. 4 No. 7 and 8 of the GDPR) as well as the certification body in the case of Art. 4(b) and the supervisory authority in the case of Art. 4(c) are

accordance with Article 133, paragraph 4, B-VG. The statement needs to be briefly justified. According to Article 133 Para. 4 B-VG, the appeal is not permissible

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (see also Articles 165 (4) and 166 (4)) TFEU in conjunction with Art. 288 (5) TFEU and the competence to issue

the plaintiff was pursuing predominantly private interests with his request. 4 The applicant lodged an objection to this by letter of 15 March 2018, which

- that the defendant 3 - the minutes of the board meeting of 13 July 2018, 4 - the minutes of the board meeting of 22 August 2018, 5 - the minutes of the

against him (cf. Ettig in Taeger/Gabel, TTDSG, 4th ed., § 21 para. 12 ff.; on the previous provision § 14 para. 3, 4 TMG Senate resolution of September 24, 2019

Kühling/Buchner/Klar/Kühling, 3rd ed. 2020, DS-GVO Art. 4 (1) marginal no. 8-10; Paal/Pauly/Ernst, 3rd ed. 2021, DS-GVO Art. 4 marginal no. 14; OLG Köln, judgment of 26

pseudonym. This is because the defendant has expressly agreed under section 4.4 para. 2 sentence 1 of its terms of use (as of 19 April 2018; Annex K 1) for

provide. According to § 4 paragraph 1 sentence 5 16th BayIfSMV, the school processes the test result for the purposes according to § 4 paragraph 1 sentence

2022, para 9 to Article 4 paragraph GDPR; Klar/Kuhling in Kühling/Buchner, DS-GVO/BDSG, 3rd edition 2020, paragraph 30 to Article 4 No. 1 GDPR; sign in BeckOK

Patients Say About Dr. [Applicant's last name] grading scale... Reviews ... 3 - 4 - Furthermore, the plaintiff requests the omission of the publication of a

the term “personal data” is defined in Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR and is immediately relevant here. According to Art. 4 No. 2 GDPR, "processing" is any process carried