Search results

in articleass 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Administrative Procedure Co-of the Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP).In accordance

in the Article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). In accordance

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of 1 October, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 10/18 Article 64.2.f) of the LPACAP -provision of which COOLTRA was informed in the agreement to open

established in article64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure ofthe Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP).In accordance

in the Article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). In accordance

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

alleged infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Does the action of the defendant constitute a violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Considering the evidence available

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (in hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

in the article64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure ofPublic Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP).In accordance

conformity with articles 64.2.f) and 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure Common Administrative of Public Administrations (LPACAP), by not carrying

the claimed party, in accordance with the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of LPACAP, for the alleged violation of the article 5.1.c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

of articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

in article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). In accordance

in article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). C / Jorge

indicated in Article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations, which in its section f) establishes

accordance with Articles 64.2.f) and 85 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on Procedure Common Administration of Public Administration (LPACAP), as it does not allegations

contrary to what the Proposal for a Resol- tion, neither Article 64 nor Article 85 of the LPACAP establishes that in the At the beginning, the specific amount

established in article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). In accordance

to the agreement to initiate the sanctioning file, under Article 64.2.f) of the LPACAP, and given that the agreement to initiate the proceedings contained

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (in hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

procedure to the claimed, withpursuant to the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of the LPACAP, for the alleged infringementof Article 58.1 of the RGPD, typified

and the lack of cooperation with the Spanish Data Protection Agency (83 (2) (f) GDPR). Therefore, in view of the aggravating factors applied to the case,

Articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

established in article64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure ofthe Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP).In accordance

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

established by Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Was there a personal data breach? The AEPD considered that there was an infringement of Article 5(1)(f), as there was a leak

accordance with Articles 64.2.f) and 85 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on Procedure Common Administration of Public Administration (LPACAP), as it does not allegations

the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of the C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeaepd.gob.es 4/20 LPACAP, for the alleged violation of Article

indicated in article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure Common Administrative of Public Administrations, which in its section f) establishes that

established in article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). In accordance

provisions of article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations, which in its Section f) establishes that

and 64 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October 2015 on the Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations (hereinafter referred to as the LPACAP), on

out in Article 64.2(f) of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on the Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administration (hereinafter LPACAP). In accordance

of Articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of 1/10, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation

in Article 64 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on the Procedure Common Administrative Framework for Public Administrations, which in paragraph (f) provides that

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter LPACAP), for the alleged

in article 64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). In accordance

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (in hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

conformity with articles 64.2.f) and 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure Common Administrative of Public Administrations (LPACAP), by not carrying

63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, 2011, on Common Administrative Procedure for Public Administrations (hereinafter referred to as LPACAP), for the

in the article64.2.f) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure ofPublic Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP).In accordance

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

in accordance with the provisions of the LOPDPGDD, and in addition to the LPACAP, in processing of sanctioning procedures. SECOND: As proven facts of the

no allegation has been received from the claimed party. Article 64.2.f) of the LPACAP - provision of which the claimed party was informed in the agreement

Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), was collected on 02/14/2022 as stated in the acknowledgment of receipt

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (in hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

provisions of article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations, which in its Section f) establishes that

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

indicated in the Article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public Administrations, which in its section f) establishes that

recognizes each supervisory authority, and as established in Articles 47, 64.2 and 68.1 of the Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, on the Protection of

with articles 64.2.f) and 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure Common Administrative Law of Public Administrations (LPACAP), by not carrying

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, 2011, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter referred to as LPACAP), for

Articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

proceedings against the respondent, with in accordance with Articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on the Common Administrative Procedure for Public

provisions of article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations, which in its section f) establishes that

provisions of articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (LPACAP), imposing a penalty of 10

against the claimed party, pursuant to the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of the LPACAP, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified

indicated in article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure Common Administrative of Public Administrations, which in its section f) establishes that

Articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure for Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

provisions of article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1,Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations, which in itssection f) establishes that in

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

virtue of the powers established in article 58.2 of the RGPD and in articles47, 64.2 and 68.1 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on Data ProtectionPersonal

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for two violations

Article 64 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on the Procedure Common Administrative Framework for Public Administrations, which in its paragraph (f) provides

Common Administrative Procedure of the Administrations Public (hereinafter, LPACAP), in terms of processing procedures sanctioners. SECOND: As proven facts

Consequently, dated September 3, 2021, for the purposes provided in its Article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency for the Protection of

Consequently, dated January 22, 2021, for the purposes provided in its article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection agreed

indicated in article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure Common Administrative of Public Administrations, which in its section f) establishes that

Consequently, on April 30, 2022, for the purposes provided in its article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection agreed

In Consequently, on May 21, 2022, for the purposes provided in its article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection agreed

Principles regarding treatment, establishes in its letter f) the following: “The personal data will be: (…) f) processed in such a way as to guarantee adequate

satisfied. Consequently, on June 27, 2022, for the purposes set forth in article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection agreed

Data Protection, as laid down in Article 56(2) in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council

AEPD fined a gas distribution company €12,000 for a violation of Article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR. A customer of a gas distribution company (Madrileña Red De Gas

Mr. F.F.F. on your SIM cards originals that same day, November 14, 2019, leaving the incidence resolved. Thus, as of the date of this claim, Mr. F.F.F.

consequently, dated May 8, 2022, for the purposes provided for in its article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency agreed

articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged

complaining party. Consequently, for the purposes provided in its Article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency for the Protection of

applicableindicated in article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the ProcedureCommon Administrative of Public Administrations, which in its section f)establishes that

In Consequently, on May 31, 2022, for the purposes provided in its article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection agreed

the proceedings, the respondent has not submitted The provisions of Article 64 of the Directive apply to this case. Law 39/2015, of 1 October, on the Common

the defendant has not submitted brief of allegations, for which article 64.2.f) of the LPCAP applies, which establishes that in case of not making allegations

applicableindicated in article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the ProcedureCommon Administrative of Public Administrations, which in its section f)establishes that

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

the almost total identity between its article 7.f) and article 6.1.f) of the RGPD Article 7, letter f) of said Directive indicated: “Member States shall

Consequently, on April 26, 2022, for the purposes provided in its article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection agreed

complainant filed a complaint with the AEPD, pursuant to Articles 56 and 57(1)(f) GDPR for obstructing his right of access. Could the data controller require

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

established by Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Was there a personal data breach? The AEPD considered that there was an infringement of Article 5(1)(f), as there was a leak

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

sectors, each of which has its own legal personality and therefore its own C.I.F. and has not maintained any relationship with the claimant. Results of the

of Articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of 1/10 of the Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged