Search results

access (Article 15 GDPR), rectification (Article 16 GDPR), erasure (Article 17 GDPR), restriction of processing (Article 18 GDPR), notification obligation

prevention (Article 23(1)(a-j) GDPR) allow for far fewer GDPR restrictions than those granted by freedom of expression. Article 85(2) GDPR poses one condition

scope of the GDPR which protects the personal data of natural persons. On the merits, he found that the limitation in Article 23(1)(j) GDPR applies to the

Information Acts and the GDPR. Due to the questions of EU law raised by the case with regard to Article 23(1)(e) GDPR and Article 23(1)(j) GDPR, the BVerwG had

democratic society as required under Article 23(1)(j) GDPR. Moreover, the exception provided for under Article 6(4) GDPR which allows processing for different

out in Article 23(1) GDPR. § 21(2) TTDSG serves the enforcement of civil claims and thus pursues an objective mentioned in Article 23(1)(j) GDPR, which

access (Article 15 GDPR), rectification (Article 16 GDPR), erasure (Article 17 GDPR), restriction (Article 18 GDPR), notification (Article 19 GDPR) or data

categories of data established in Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, Article 9(2)(c) GDPR, Article 9(2)(g) GDPR and Article 9(2)(i) GDPR directly correlate with a specific

flows by the SA pursuant to Article 58(2) GDPR or failure to provide access in violation of Article 58(1) GDPR. Article 83(6) GDPR is a superfluous provision

commentary to Article 60 GDPR, Article 61 GDPR, Article 62 GDPR, Article 63 GDPR, Article 64 GDPR, Article 65 GDPR, Article 66 GDPR and Article 56 GDPR. The SA

to personal data (Article 47(2)(n) GDPR; a duty for the group to have data protection audits on regular basis (Article 47(2)(j) GDPR); and to designate

leeway exists only in cases of Article 64(2) GDPR but not the context of Article 70(2) GDPR. According to Article 70(3) GDPR, the EDPB is obligated to “forward

between Article 21(3) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR on the right to erasure must be considered. The tight relationship between Article 21(3) and Article 17(1)(c)

up. Indeed, the wording of Article 40(1) establishes that they “shall encourage” this (emphasis added). Article 40(1) GDPR clarifies that codes of conduct

provided for in Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or, as the case may be, Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, and consent is withdrawn according to Article 7(3) GDPR, data must be

or infringes the GDPR or any other applicable laws, including national ones. See commentary under Article 77 GDPR. Article 78(1) GDPR establishes both

connection with the violation of article/and 5.1. c); 6.1.; 13.1. (c);13.1(e) and13.2(a)AVG: r PAGE 01-00001582885-0002-0033-01- □1-� r L _JCourt of Appeal Brussels

processing by the defendant 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

cites Articles 5(1)(b) and (e), 9(2)(j), 89(1) GDPR and Section 7(1)(1) and (2)(1) GDPR. In particular, it follows from Article 9(2)(j) GDPR that the processing

regarding Articles 5(1)(b) GDPR and 5(1)(e) GDPR and held that national courts had to determine, using the factors of Article 6(4) GDPR, whether further processing

to injunctive relief from § 29 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 2 BDSG old version, but from § 29 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 1 BDSG old version, although the "basic

processing of personal data (Article 5(1) of the GDPR), must, in accordance with Article 12(1) of the GDPR. 1 of the GDPR, must take appropriate measures

lawfulness, the Litigation Chamber concludes that Article 5.1.a. of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 6 of the GDPR have not been complied with with regard to

breach of Article 32 of the GDPR has occurred. B. On the failure to notify the data breach to the CNIL 32. Pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the GDPR, in the

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notification of the aforementioned start-up

proportionality of the measure under Article 6(4) GDPR, in accordance with the objectives referred to in Article 23(1) GDPR. It recalled that these objectives

instance, the controller sought to rely upon Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Article 6(1)(e) GDPR establishes a lawful basis for the processing

point (e) of Article 6(1) of the GDPR. 48 If a data subject has objected to the data processing, it follows from Article 21(1) of the GDPR that compelling

million) kroner for violation of Article 44 of the data protection regulation. 1 Description of the supervisory matter 1.1 The processing The Swedish Privacy

35.1 and 35.7; Under Article 100, § 1, 5° of the LCA, to impose a reprimand _for violations of Articles 30.1.a) and 30.1.d},; Pursuant to Article 108(1)

Survey". Justification . Pursuant to Article 78 paragraph 1, Article 79 paragraph 1 point 1 and Article 84 paragraph 1 point 1-4 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on

violates Article 32 GDPR. Retaining personal data of an applicant for a lease after another applicant has been selected also violates Article 5(1)(e) GDPR

the violation of the GDPR: violation of article 6.1, violation typified in its article 83.5.a). IV Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR “Security of processing”

Therefore the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) and (2), Article 6(1), Article 12(1), Article 13(1)(b) and (c) GDPR. The DPA imposed a fine of €50.000

very serious in article 72.1. e) from the LOPDGDD, with 10,000 euros. -article 13 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5 b) of the GDPR, and for the

obtained from them, as required under Article 14(1)(a) AVG and Article 14(2)(c)(e) and point (f) AVG; c. article 12 j° article 14 AVG, in view of the defendant

5- □ 1-i; -J L ..J Brussels-2020 Court of Appeal / AR / 1333 p. 3 breach of articles 5.1.a} and 5.1.b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the GDPR read

ofcontroller (article 4.7 of the GDPR), the scope of the GDPR (article3.1 of the GDPR), the right to erasure (article 17 of the GDPR) and its powers (article 58.2of

found violations of Articles 5(1)(c) and 6 GDPR and Article 29(1) of Law 125(I)/2018. Concerning the violation of Article 29(1) of Law 125(I)/2018, the DPA

in the same article 83. 111. Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20, paragraph III, of the Data Protection Act, provides: 1. Each supervisory

paying profiles. II.4. Article 12(1),(2) and (3), Article 17, Article 19, Article 24(1) and Article 25(1) AVG 63. Article 12 (1) GDPR stipulates that the

the general rule of Article 15 (1) (a), c) and d) of the GDPR by not giving substantive, specific answers to the request under Article 15 and by sharing

provided for in Article 5(1)(a), (e) and (f), Article 5(2), Article 24(1) and (2), Article 28(3), Article 30(1)(d) and (f) and Article 32(1) of the General

enshrined in Article 25 GDPR. Additionally, the AEPD concluded that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, noting that although the GDPR does not

Appeal considered that Article 96 GDPR does not provide a time limit for the validity of international agreements concluded prior GDPR and that a ban on some

accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1)(c), Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, or both provisions? 2.     Does the answer to Question 1 mean: a)      that the person

request under Article 21 GDPR can be made at any time and several times. It also found that a provisional measure can be granted under Article 21 GDPR if an urgent

of the GDPR: art. 5.1 a, 12.1, 13, 14, 6, 7, 5.1.c in conjunction with 25, 5.2, 28.3, 31, 37 and 38 AVG. 63. With regard to Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR, the defendant

of articles 38.1, 38.3, 39.1 a) and 39.1 b) of the GDPR; - to issue an injunction against Company A to comply with Article 38.1 of the GDPR, within four

conferred by article 79(2) of the GDPR. This is the relevant provision for the purposes of para 3.1(20) of CPR Practice Direction 3B. Article 79(2) provides:

with the principle of fair and transparent processing contained in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? Is the information relating to personal data processing operations

principles to the GDPR;
 
 (b) The effect (if any) of the remaining claims – Article 5(1)(f) GDPR (the data security principle), the Article 8 claim and

artikel 100, §1, 2° WOG de buitenvervolgingstelling bevelen, of de klacht seponeren overeenkomstig artikel 95, §1, 1° of artikel 100, §1, 1° WOG (naargelang

consent of the respective data subject, therefore infringing Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. On 23 October 2019, a complaint was lodged before a court relating to

approved appeal of Article 5(1)(a), Article 12(1), Article 13(1) and Article 13(2). The appeal for Article 5(1)(c), Article 6(1) and Article 8 GDPR was not approved

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72.1 m), under the rubric “Infractions considered very grave ”provides: "1. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.5 of Regulation

updates. In the near future step 1 PAGE □1-□□□□149307□-□□□3-□□22- □1-□1-� L _J' Court of Appeal Brussels -2019/AR/1006 -p. 4 13-1 the Bank X from the current

S.A.U. with NIF A-65559296, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www

legal bases of contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR), legal obligation (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR) and legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) and determined that

thealleged infringement of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPDand considered very serious in 72.1.a), for the purposes of prescription

Data Protection 23. The claimant relies on Article 82, as supplemented by s.168 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Article 82 of the UK-GDPR provides data

pursuant to Article 47(1) and 48.1 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October, on the limitation of the infringement of article 6.1 of the RGPD typified in article 83.5 a)

images, in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) found that the defendant's conduct violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as a broader principle

proceedings Article 77 (1) and Article 22 (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation. may be submitted in the case provided for in Under Article 77 (1) of the

functions assigned to the control authorities in article 57.1 and the powers granted in the article 58.1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection

been deleted by the employer upon request pursuant to Article 16, Article 17 and Article 5(1)(d) GDPR (inaccuracy of personal data). Therefore, the employer

given that Article 6(1), Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(1)(c), and Article 14 GDPR were infringed in connection to Article 5(1)(b), the AEPD

the exceptional circumstances of Article 23 (1) e GDPR in conjunction with Sections 32c (1) No. 1, 32b (1) sentence 1 No 1 a, sentence 2, § 32 paragraph 2

private doctor for violating Article 32 GDPR by making his patients' health data freely accessible on the web, and Article 33 GDPR by not notifying the DPA

A80907397, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 1. APPOINT Mr. D.D.D. as instructor. and

messages. Is this a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR? The AEPD held that this behaviour was a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and fined Vodafone €100,000

infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, infringement typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned Regulation 2016/679. II breached obligation Article 6.1 of the

is covered by Article 6, clause 1 (c) of the AVG and not by Article 6, clause 6 (f) of the AVG. The BKR itself refers to Article 6, clause 1 (f) of the GCG

in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter GDPR), and in

personal data under Article 15 GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the airline company had not complied with the right to access in Article 15 GDPR when it refused

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public

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

terminated, must be assessed in the light of Article 6 GDPR and not Article 10 GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR provides a sufficient basis for processing. The

Justification 3.1.1. Regarding the purpose limitation findings (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and the lawfulness of processing (Article 6.1 GDPR) 12. In its report

time, which is a violation of the GDPR. As to the claim for damages, the CoS notes that though Article 82(1) of the GDPR states that full compensation for

this purchase contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR). Therefore, the processing is compatible with the GDPR. In the Netherlands, as of 1 July 2018 a passenger who

investigations the CNIL found five breaches of the GDPR: -         Violation of the right to object, Article 21(2) GDPR: no procedure was implemented to ensure effectively

meaning that no violation of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR could be established. Integrity and confidentiality - Article 5(1)(f) GDPR As explained above, the DPA

referred to as the ISESA), as provided for in Article 43.1 of the said Act. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October 1995 on the Common Administrative Procedure

specific enough and did not comply with Article 13 GDPR. Does the lack of precision enough to infrige Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD found that the information

the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or on Article 9, (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a), the existence of the

Para. 1 GDPR, which pursuant to Art. 57 Para. 1 lit. q GDPR in conjunction with Section 2 (2) of the ÜStAkk-V can be submitted to this. On point 1 (partial

referred to as ABN AMRO. 1.2 1.2 [Appellants] lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal on 1 May 2019, received at the Court Registry on 1 May 2019, against the

that a valid legal basis would be either Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, or Article 6(1)(d) GDPR or Article 9(2)(b) GDPR. The Data protection authority (the UOOU)

Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the first stipulation and section 2.2 of the second stipulation of the aforementioned contract state "FIRST.- OBJECT: 1.1 The purpose

of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD

therefore violated Articles 9(1) GDPR out of negligence. The DPA fined the controller €1,600,000 pursuant of Article 83(5)(a) GDPR and considered this a high

In an Article 60 GDPR procedure, the Danish DPA reprimanded Danske bank for a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. A technical error resulted in the unauthorised

subparagraphs b '. y '. d 'and e' of par. 1 of article 5 as well as of article 6 par. 1ΓΚΠΔ ... ». 3. Reasoning 3.1. The data contained in an insurance policy

details. 201907720/1/A3. Date of judgment: 9 December 2020 SECTION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judgment on the appeals of: 1. [appellant under 1], residing at [place

right of access under Article 15 GDPR? By denying the complainant access, did the respondent infringe Articles 12(1) or 12(2) GDPR? The NAIH that the complainant's

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public

violation of articles 5.1.f, of the RGPD -as set out in Article 83(5)(a) of the said regulation and 5(1)(f) in relation to Article 32(1)(b) and (c) - specified

to in Article 5(1) LRN, under which the controller did not fall in. Therefore, the controller breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR, in conjunction

Motifs 3.1 Compétence de la Chambre de Résolution des Litiges (Article 2 AVG ; Article 4 WOG) 55. Conformément à l'article 2, paragraphe 1, de l'AVG,

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR? AEPD considered that the documentation provided offers evidence that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) of the GDPR, by processing

RESOLVES:FIRST: IMPOSE BBB , with NIF *** NIF.1 , for a violation of the article5.1.d) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a penalty of € 3,000

by the defendant under Article 6(1) GDPR? Did the controller infringe the data minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR? Did the controller commit

constitutes sensitive data within the meaning of Article 9 GDPR. The DPA alluded to Article 9(1) GDPR which prohibits the processing of these special categories

ensure the protection of the interests referred to in Article 23(1). objectives referred to in Article 23(1), the controller shall take into account when assessing

with Art. 2 para. 1, Art. 1 para. 1 GG, Art. 17 para. 1 lit. d) DSGVO, because her personal data is stored according to Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f. DSGVO had

may not be based on Article 45. Article 46.1 provides, among other things, that in the absence of a decision in accordance with Article 45.3 a personal data

regulated in article 6 of the GDPR. The assumptions that allow the processing of personal data to be considered lawful listed in article 6.1 of the GDPR: 1. Treatment

party, breach Article 6(1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) referred to the principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a)), as well as

been taken up in Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR under the Principles relating to the processing of personal data (Chapter II). Article 5(1)(b) of the RGPD

provisions of article 58.2.i) of the GDPR, for the alleged infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5.b) of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT

controller violated Article 5(1)(d) GDPR ("accuracy"), but a more natural conclusion would be to find a violation of Article 32(1)(d) GDPR ("adoption of adequate

supply data, without the consent of the data subject, a breach of Article 6 (1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the processing of data relating to electricity

significant (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR). - basic personal identifiers were affected (name, identification number, the line identifier) (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The

violation of Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that were clear indications that the defendant infringed Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR, principles relating

violation of article 6.1. f) of the RGPD, in relation with article 20.1 c) of the LOPDGDD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the cited GDPR That by writing

the authority ofcontrol pursuant to Article 58 (2), or failure to provide access in breachof article 58, paragraph 1. "Organic Law 3/2018, on the Protection

the Strijp-S housing complex in Eindhoven. It's agreed 1 Facts 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 that [plaintiff] directly to PME Investment Services

specified in the same Article 83." 112. Under Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20(III) of the Data Protection Act: "1. Each supervisory authority

basis for the processing (Article 21(1) GDPR). Finally, the DPA fined the controller €12,000 for a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR due to the lack of a valid

loss of control of personal data and a breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. The first complainant is a company that is engaged

This behaviour was in violation of Article 31 GDPR. Thirdly, Company B was found to be in violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. This provision imposes an obligation

applicable to the controller, including Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR. As a matter of fact, Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR set general principles and conditions of processing

obligation according to Article 25(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, because the controller had failed to implement Article 5(1)(a) of the General

2016 (General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR), in conjunction with Article 3, Article 4(2) and Article 6(1)(b), all of which are applicable to the processing

functions assigned to the control authorities in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es

for fraud prevention under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Did the company’s policy breach Article 6 or any other articles of the GDPR? The Garante held that the

and GDPR? Is a prediction of a political affiliation a "special category of data" under Article 9(1) GDPR? How much are the damages under Article 82 GDPR

correspond would be for the infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, the sanction that would correspond would be

referred to in Article 64(1) or does not follow the opinion of the Committee issued under Article 64". 8. The investigation shows that, on 1 June 2018, the

as established in article 5 of the GDPR. The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. III The GDPR defines personal

in accordance with Article 32 (2) of the Regulation. 2nd 3.3. Article 33 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1 and Article 34 (1). 1 The Data Inspectorate

of personal data of data subjects guaranteed by Article 44 GDPR and consequently breached Article 44 GDPR. The DPA issued a fine of 300,000 SEK (approx.

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public

violated Article 6(1)GDPR, for processing personal data without a legal basis. Hence, the AEPD decided to fine Telefónica for the violation of Article 6(1)GDPR

have breached the lawfulness of processing principle as per article 6(1) GDPR, as well as article 20 of the Spanish Law on Personal Data Protection and Guarantee

an alleged violation of article 6 of the GDPR typified as an infringement of basic principles for processing in article 83.5 GDPR. In determining the amount

Vodafone España, S.A.U. (the defendant) for the infringement of Article 6(1) of the GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early voluntary payment of the corresponding

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in the article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Administrative Procedure Common of

assessment pursuant to Article 35 of the GDPR and, depending on the outcome, also have to consult the AP beforehand (Article 36 of the GDPR). In addition, as

in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter GDPR), and C/

concerns the following in this appeal. 3.1.1. [the employee] , born on [date of birth] 1964, was employed on 1 September 1986 joined Trigion's legal predecessor

Articles 6 and 13 GDPR? The AEPD decided to impose, for infringement of Article 6 GDPR, a fine of € 10000 and, for infringement of Article 13 GDPR, a fine of

for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On January 23, 2023, DIGI requests a copy of the

processing was therefore in breach of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR. The DPA also ruled out Article 6(1)(f) on the grounds of domestic law:

health data, recorded in copies Article 6 (1) of the GDPR and, in the case of health data, Article 9 of the GDPR. Article 1 (1); (3) did not provide clear

her life. Her objection to processing follows from Article 21(1) GDPR. ING argues that Article 21(1) GDPR cannot be relied on in this case because it applies

his/her consent. The DPA first outlined Article 6(1)(a) and (b) GDPR, Articles 4(11) GDPR on consent, as well as Article 6 of the Spanish Data Protection Law

principles are found under Article 5(1)(a) and Article 5(2) GDPR respectively]. The Spanish DPA even made reference to Recital 40 GDPR on the legality of processing

have entered into a breacha / 'article 14.1-2 combined' article 12.3, article 6, article 5.1, c) and articles 5.2 and 24.1-2 of the RGPO. It is therefore

"Principles of Data Protection", article 4.1 of the LOPDGDD determines: "4. Data accuracy. 1. In accordance with article 5.1.d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

controller was in breach of Article 38(1) GDPR at the time of the investigation. Regarding the breach of Article 39(1)(b) GDPR, the CNPD concurred with the

that this would also be contrary to the AVG. Article 82 of the AVG 12. Article 82 of the AVG reads as follows: 1. Any person who has suffered material or non-material

rating, breaching Article 6(1) GDPR, and required the company to implement a policy for conducting credit ratings per Article 24 GDPR. A person lodged a

Article 57 (1) (a), Article 58 (2) (e) and (i), Article 83 (1) - (3) and Article 83 (4) (a) in connection with Article 33 (1) and Article 34 (1), (2) and

constitutes personal data according with Article 4(1) GDPR therefore its processing falls within the scope of GDPR. The DPA also analysed whether the controller

patient data cf. Article 32 GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and inadequate internal controls cf. Article 24 GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. Østfold Hospital

the lack of security routines, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) cf. Article 5 GDPR, Article 35 and Article 24(1), respectively. Teachers at two junior high

data under the GDPR. The Italian DPA started an investigation concerning potential violations of Articles 5(1)(a), 6, 13, 28(1) and 35 GDPR. The Italian

principle, namely the breaches of articles 5-1-c), 5 -1 e), 13, 32 and 35-1 of the GDPR; no breach of Article 6 of the GDPR and of Directive 2002/58 / EC of the

personal data in that assessment pursuant to Article 15(1) GDPR. However, Article 23(1)(i) GDPR and Article 41 UAVG provide the possibility of a restriction

claimant’s signature constitute a breach under the GDPR? The AEPD held that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) GDPR, as they had processed the claimant’s data without

the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Section 3 of the Finnish Act on the Protection

entity has violated article 6 of the GDPR, for carrying out a processing of personal data without legitimacy. II Article 6.1 of the GDPR establishes the assumptions

be established on Article 45. Article 46.1 provides, among other things, that in the absence of a decision in accordance with Article 45.3 a personal data

pursuant to Article 54 of ZVOP-1, points (a), (d) and (f) of Article 58 (2) of the General Regulation, Articles 29 and 32 of the ZIN and Article 221 ZUP,

engines (see Annex 1 to note of 9 January 2019, p. 1); b) to be "aware of the dispersion of data on 12.12.2018" (see note of 9 January 2019, p. 1) and to have

under Article 4(1) GDPR. These statistics even included health data which qualify as a special category of personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. The Datatilsynet

according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, is data personnel and their protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

commercial SMS on your mobile line ***PHONE.1. In this sense, article 21 of the LSSI provides the following: "1. The sending of advertising or promotional

be referred to respectively as '[plaintiff]' and '[the State]'. 1 The proceedings 1.1. The course of the procedure is evidenced by - the summons with productions;

basis under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, the Court found that the data subject cannot exercise his right to object pursuant to Article 21(1) GDPR. Secondly, the

adequate information under Article 13 GDPR, and for the processing of personal data in a manner contrary to Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. A data subject submitted

highly sensitive personal data exposed, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2), cf. Article 24. An employee in a municipal health care center

relation to the requirements prescribed by Article 12.1 of the GDPR (transparency obligation) and by Article 13 of the GDPR (right to information). The Head of

that the article’s publication was in violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, when read in line with Article 85 GDPR. Article 5(1)(c) outlines

Articles 6(1)(b), 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) deemed itself competent under Article 58(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 47 of the

03/31/2020, a written letter is sent to the respondent, *** ADDRESS.1, *** LOCALITY.1 (*** PROVINCE.1), address of the Mer- cantil, giving result "Returned to Origin

provided in article 5.1.f) and 32.1 of the GDPR (LCEur 2016, 605). It should be noted that the GDPR, without prejudice to the provisions of its article 83, contemplates

Act and, subsequently, the GDPR. Request for compensation in case his data is processed unlawfully is also in line with the GDPR. The facts that this may

e7141c720c53441c2483c; has_js=1; _gid=GA1.2.1837808855.1597415922; _gat=1 Upgrade-Insecure-Requests 1 If-None-Match" 1597405902-1" Cache-Control max-age=0”

entity has violated article 6 of the GDPR, for carrying out a processing of personal data without legitimacy. II Article 6.1 of the GDPR establishes the assumptions

personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. Their processing would require the data subjects' explicit consent under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and § 151(4) GewO,

section 1, subsection 1, section 14, subsections 1–2, section 15, subsections 1 and 3. and subsection 4, 3 points, section 16, subsection 1, section 18

employee of the entity - infringes Article 32. 2 and 32.4 of the RGPD, an infringement punishable under Article 83.4.a of the GDPR. Assessing the circumstances

Service and transferred to the Disputes Chamber pursuant to article 62, § 1 j° article 92, 1° WOG. 10. On 7 February 2020, the Disputes Chamber invites

breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Was the publication of the census copies a breach of the data integrity and confidentiality principle under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR

derogant rule, based on the interpretation of Article 95 GDPR in the line of the Rec (173) GDPR and Article 1(2) and 15a of the ePrivacy Directive. The CNIL

amended: Article 3,, Article 4, number 11,, Article 7,, Article 51, paragraph one,, Article 12, paragraph 3,, Article 17,, Article 19,, Article 57, paragraph

company was not compliant with Article 13 GDPR. The CNPD held that the controller infringed Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and decided to: - impose

against the controller. Based on Article 72(1)(b) of the national data protection law, and Articles 83(1) and 83(2) GDPR, the DPA considered aggravating

had been unlawful because Article 6(1)(e) GDPR provided a valid legal basis and there was no violation of Article 6(4) GDPR. The controller is the Minister

title of documents containing sensitive information was a breach of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, highlighting that the breach was reported to the municipality by

Protection Act) § 22. The provisions of Articles 13(1) to (3), Article 14(1), Article 15 and Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation shall not apply

(the defendant) for the infringement of Article 6(1) of the GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment of the corresponding

Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned a Luxembourg

According to the data subject, it follows from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 79 GDPR, that they should not be ordered to pay those

of GDPR Article 5(1)(a) (processing must be fair, lawful and satisfy a condition under Article 6), Article 5(1)(d) (data must be accurate), Article 10

violation of Article 12 GDPR ? Are the following practices an infringement on data subjects' information right as described in Article 12 GDPR ? Spreading

be answered on 23/04/2019 and also forwarded to the Court of Occupation (Document 26}." r PAGE □1-□□□□ 1429503- □□□4-□□ 15-□2-□1-;i L _J,Court of appeal

defined in the first paragraph. Article 4 of the Act, cf. Points 2 and 4 Article 3 of the Act and points 1 and 2. Article 4 of the Regulation. According

Pursuant to Article 60 (2), a request to initiate an official data protection procedure may be made in the case provided for in Article 77 (1) of the General

connection with Article 5 paragraph 1 point c, Article 9 paragraph 1, Article 58 paragraph 2 point f, point g and point i and with Article 83 paragraph 2

(f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and

" *** DIRECCION.2 *** *** LOCALIDAD.1 CCAA.1 " . In section“ NIF ” the *** NIF.1. And in the section " Telephone 1" the mobile number*** PHONE . 2. The

an infringement of Article 5 (1) a), b) and c) and (2) of the GDPR and Article 24 (1) of the GDPR; and - an infringement of article 8 of the law of 21

having knowledge of the following: 1.1 In general, marketing actions can be classified attending to several criteria. 1.1.1. Campaigns managed directly by

these allegations, she placed reliance upon Recitals 1, 4 and 7 together of Article 4(11) of GDPR. Whelan J., has stated the evidence indicates that the disclosure

Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned a Luxembourg

breach and had failed to do so within the timeframe set out in Article 33(1) of the GDPR, meaning that the company had breached this provision. Consequently

other legal basis for processing under Article 6 GDPR, the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR. Taking into account the low income

Based on 20 of 23 working days in the relevant period, this amounts to an amount of 20/23 x € 3,297.00 x 1.08 = € 3,096.31 gross in salary, 20/23 x € 4,110

it deemed the restrictions on the right of access (Article 15 GDPR]) according to Article 23(1)(h) GDPR legitimate after a reasonable balancing of the public

the data could be processed under the legitimate interest basis (ARTICLE 6(1)(f) GDPR). The tribunal weighted the different interests at stake and decided

basis of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR because its processing activities infringed Articles 5(1)(a)(b) and (c), 6(1), 12(1)-(5), 15(1) and 17(1) of the GDPR

him. Article 23 of the GDPR and Article 41 of the UAVG specify the restrictions on the right of access. What do the parties on appeal think? 3.1. Plaintiff

questions: 1° Should Article 72.2 of the e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(f) of that directive and with Article 95 of the

in point 1 of the judgment pursuant to Article 145 § 1 of the Act on Administrative Law. 1 of the judgment pursuant to Article 145 § 1 item. 1c of the Act

pursuant to Art. 14 par. 5 lit. b GDPR? The President of UODO found that: 1) The applicable provision is the Art. 14 GDPR since the data controller collects

for the performance of the contract.” It compared Article 7(b) Directive 95/46/EC to Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and found that the two are “almost identical”. Hence

€ 184 to the plaintiff for paid justice. This statement was made by Mr. J.J.J. Catsburg, judge, in the presence of Mr. L.E. - L.E. Mollerus, clerk. The

Federation pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) of the General Data Protection Regulation. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(j) and Article 66(1) of the General Data Protection

Agency's decision 3.1. Authorization to record telephone conversations 3.1.1. Pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, there is in principle

personal data within the meaning of Article 4, opening words and (1) of the AVG. Based on Article 2, paragraph 1 and Article 3, paragraph 2, of the AVG, the

6GDPR,Article 5.1.b),Article 5.1.a)j°Article 13andArticle 27 GDPR due to the current processing activities. 23. The purpose of this decision is to inform the

HmbKrebsRG Article 9 (1) GDPR, Article 6 (1) GDPR, Article 5 (1) in conjunction with Articles 12, 13 and/or Article 14 GDPR and/or Article 5 (1) (in particular

identifier) pursuant to Article 4(1) of the GDPR. c) Combination with other elements The fulfillment of Article 4(1) of the GDPR becomes even more apparent

infringement of article 5.1.f), in relation to article 6.1, of the RGPD. The infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5.a) of the

at €1,068 (1 point for submitting the notice of appeal, 1 point for appearing at the hearing, with a value per point of € 534 and weighting factor 1). Furthermore

their employees. The DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Following a visit to the premises of two public

subjects required by Article 12.2. of the GDPR. 8.1.3. As for the breach of the principle of minimization (article 5.1 c) of the GDPR) 8.1.3.1. In view of the

collected for other purposes which would be incompatible with Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(4) GDPR. The CE dismissed that claimed by recalling that both

controller was. Article 22 of the Danish Data Protection Act serves as a restriction of Article 15 GDPR based on Article 23 GDPR. However, Article 22 of the

is processed pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Data Protection Regulation. 1, letter e, Article 9, subsection 2, letter j, and § 10 of the Data Protection

Authorities to receive the information as referred to in Article 15, paragraph 1 a to h GDPR." 3.1. The Division agrees with the judgment of the District

provides as follows: (1) This section applies where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section 165 or Article 77 of the UK GDPR, the Commissioner—

processing pursuant to Article 6(1) GDPR even if the data protection authority had only based its investigation on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The controller operates

affected" within the meaning of Art. 15 para. 1 GDPR. The right to information under Article 15.1 of the GDPR is also not transferred to the insolvency administrator

court upheld Article 6(1)(e) GDPR as the legal basis for the processing of personal data. Furthermore, according to the court, Article 9(2)(j) GDPR states that

would be based 5. 1, a) GDPR, Article 6, Article 12.1 GDPR and Article 14.1 a) GDPR. 67. Moreover, a controller, in this case defendant 1, cannot suffice

violation of Article 5(2) GPDR since the controller failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(1) GDPR and a violation of Article 44 GDPR since the controller

83(4)(a) GDPR in conjunction with [Article 32(1) GDPR. Article 32 (1) GDPRby failing, at least with gross negligence, to ensure processes for sufficient authentication

consent was given obtained (potential violation of Article 6.1 a) GDPR): ▪ Article 6.1 a) GDPR and Article 129 of the law on electronic communication (WEC)

breach of Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD held that the facts complained of involving the violation by the City Council of the provisions of Article 13 of the

jurisprudence/literature, 1 hour studying documents/file, 1 hour consulting with [name of defendant] , 1 hour letters/e-mail various, 1 hour preparing the hearing

processing as per Article 5(1)(b), nor legal grounds as per Article 6. In sum, the DPA found that NIF had breached Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (f), Article 6, and Article

submits that Article 77 AVG 2, interpreted in the light of Articles 1, 51(1) and 57 AVG, recitals 7, 10 and 141 AVG, Article 8 Charter and Article 16 TFEU,

law of the Member States. Article 6 paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 letter e in conjunction with Paragraph 3 sentence 1 letter b GDPR was missing (para. 24 f

With regard to limitation periods, article 72.1.k) of the LOPDGDD, establishes: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679

mrs. J.G. Reus, T.J.M. de Weerd and A.M. van Aerde in Amsterdam. Parties are hereinafter referred to as Blauw and Nebu. 1. The case in brief 1.1. Blauw