Search results

be no question of the application of Article 20 AVG and that the GBA was not competent in the matter. GBA was not competent in this matter, that there

van de opinie van de EDPB 05/2018 gepubliceerd op https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/2018- 09-25-opinion_2018_art._64_de_sas_dpia_list_en

The Belgian DPA (APD/GBA) assessed whether the defendant (an autonomous provincial public entity for tourism) breached the GDPR by placing intelligent

were already discussed in front of the APD. The Court can do so in case of a manifest factual or legal error by the APD. The Court confirmed the violations

of Representatives on 20 Having regard to the rules of procedure as approved by the House of Representatives on 20 December 2018 and published in the Belgian

The settlement covered possible violations in the period between 25 May 2018 to 20 November 2020. The DPA determined that the settlement decision (168/2022)

the APD considered that the controller sent vague and imprecise information about the source of the data subject’s personal data. Therefore, the APD concluded

the Rules of Procedure as approved by the House of Representatives on 20 December 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on January 15, 2019;

internal order, as approved by the Chamber of Representatives on December 20, 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on January 15, 2019; Having

measures to prevent it. He also stated that he would complain with the GBA. The GBA explained that when it dismisses a complaint, it must give reasons for

functioning of the company. However, the GBA added that the other provisions of the GDPR must also be respected. The GBA then established that the controller

Decision on the merits 124/2021 of 10 November 2021 File number : DOS-2018-05039en DOS-2018-05524 Subject : Sharing of personal data concerning tenants of

Therefore, the APD considered that the second controller failed to comply with its duty to provide information under Article 13 GDPR. The APD thus dismissed

points. The APD indicated that the proposed settlement would not be modified in accordance with the data subject’s requests. Firstly, the APD noted that

“possibly” taking copies, the APD considered that there was no evidence that the file was effectively taken or stolen. Therefore, the APD dismissed the complaint

internal regulations as approved by the House of Representatives on 20 December 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on January 15, 2019;

as approved by the House of Representatives Representatives on December 20, 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on January 15, 2019; Considering

as approved by the House of Representatives Representatives on December 20, 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on January 15, 2019; Considering

the Rules of Procedure as approved by the House of Representatives on 20 December 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on January 15, 2019;

rules of procedure, as approved by the Chamber of Representatives on 20 December 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on January 15, 2019;