Search results

corresponding legal basis contained in Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, 6(1)(d) GDPR and 6(1)(e) GDPR respectively, and would require no additional correlation. The other

There is a slightly different concept of "explicit consent" in Articles 9(1)(a), 22(2)(c) and 49(1)(a) GDPR. See the commentary on Article 9(1)(a) GDPR for

consent under Article 6(4) GDPR and further processing for a compatible purpose under Article 6(4) GDPR. See the commentary on Article 6(4) GDPR for details

alike. This consent is not valid. If a controller relies on consent under Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, data subjects can withdraw their consent

safeguards (see Article 32(1)(a) GDPR); Handling of personal data breaches (see Article 34(3)(a) GDPR); Changing purposes of data processing (Article 6(4)(e) GDPR);

reliance on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR or at least exercise the right to object under Article 21 GDPR. If the legal basis is Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (i.e. 'legitimate

provided for in Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or, as the case may be, Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, and consent is withdrawn according to Article 7(3) GDPR, data must be

legitimate interest that a controller must demonstrate under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, as any processing based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR would otherwise be essentially

legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) or (ii) the public interest (Article 6(1)(e) GDPR). Hence, data subjects may find themselves in a situation where

basis of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR (i.e. processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject) or Article 6(1)(e) GDPR

the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available here). EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’

entities could claim a legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for communication data for purposes that are even less serious. Such a legitimate interest

of such processing (see Article 5(1)(b) GDPR), the requirement to have a legitimate basis laid down by law (see Article 6(1) GDPR), the right to access and

Member States. Example: Article 6(1)(a) GDPR Example: Not Art. 6 Abs 1 Lit a GDPR or Article 6 GDPR or GDPR Article 6, Sec 1(a) Recitals are also not shortened

complying with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject, under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. In line with the general objectives of the GDPR, as outlined

of data listed under Article 9(1) GDPR. There have been conflicting arguments as to whether Article 22(1) GDPR lays down a right or a general prohibition

which would be competent under Article 55(1) GDPR, as provided in Article 56 GDPR in connection with Article 60 GDPR. For more information see commentary

lead SA (“LSA”) (Article 65(1)(b) GDPR), and where a SA is not following an opinion of the EDPB (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR). Article 65(1)(a) GDPR addresses the

compliant with Articles 5 and 6 GDPR. According to Article 6 GDPR, when a controller did not rely on consent (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR), its processing should be

other two conditions of Article 6 (1) (f) of the GDPR are not met. (26) The second condition of Article 6 (1) (f) of the GDPR is that the processing of

been provided, where: (a) the processing is based on consent pursuant to point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2) or on a contract pursuant to

provisions Article 4.11: Consent (definition) Article 4.12: Violation of personal data (definition) Article 5.2: Principle of accountability Article 6.1.a: Legal

provided in article 46.1 of the aforementioned Law. 940-0419 Mar Spain Martí Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

consented to processing of his or her data (Art 7 (1) GDPR). This is equally true under Article 7(a) of the Directive 95/46, which required that the data

processing still needs to rely on a legal basis from Article 6(1) GDPR and comply with the principles enshrined in Article 5 GDPR. Additionally, the processing

Supervision: Article 6(1)(f), legitimate interest. For the special category personal data: About diagnosis: Article 6(1)(a), cf. Article 9(2)(a), consent

The heading of Article 6(1) and the wording “has given” in Article 6(1)(a) support this interpretation. It follows logically from Article 6 and Recital 40

this case under Article 6(1)(a) or 6(1)(c)? If Article 6(1)(a) applies, do the requirements for parental consent under Article 8 GDPR also apply? Did the

category personal data and thus requires a legal ground for processing as per Article 9(2) GDPR, in addition to Article 6(1). However, the Board were split in

with Article 57(1)(a) and (h) of the RGPD. Moreover, the restricted formation notes that Article 80 of the EPMR provides for the possibility for a person

against a controller (as defined under Article 4(7) GDPR) and a processor (as defined under Article 4(8) GDPR). As noted above, Article 79 GDPR imposes

investigated are not compliant with the consent requirements under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR when placing cookies. Following its investigation of 175 websites

personal data is consent (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR) given while registering to the newsletter. Article 8(1) GDPR establishes the age at which a minor can legally give

provisions of Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(f), and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR) and €50 (for violating Article 58(1)(a), 58(1)(e) and Article 83(5)(e) GDPR). Thus, the

The Commissioner fined a doctor € 14,000 for publishing sensitive patient data on Instagram. Patient filed a complaint with the Commissioner because her

without a basis from Article 6. Therefore, the AEPD considered that there has been an infringement of Article 6.1, entailing a fine of €2000. Article 14 refers

DPA found a violation of the principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency established in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Moreover, the DPA found a violation

contrary to GDPR, specifically, articles Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) GDPR. Though the Hospital acknowledged that the form was not adapted to the new GDPR rules

as per Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The DPA found that the analysis of large amounts of data to create customer profiles could not be based on Article 6(1)(f).

The DPA therefore held that the controller violated Article 6(1)(a) (jo Article 4(11) and Article 7(1)). Regarding the pre-ticked boxes for third-party cookies

with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR when no valid consent has been obtained? The OVG Saarlouis also dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff arguing as follows: 1) The

below is a machine translation of the original. Please refer to the Finnis original for more details. Assistant Data Protection Officer gave Finnkino a note

the board management of the DPA to issue a referral in order to open an ex officio investigation (Article 63(1) of the Law establishing the Belgian DPA)

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

requirements of Article 33 GDPR. Based on a data subject's complaint, the Romanian DPA started investigations into a dental practice and a collaborating

the privacy policy. Thus, Article 21(1) LSSI has not been complied with, as there is no consent according to Articles 6 and 7 GDPR. Serious infringements

recordings of a witness on a website an infringement of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR? Is placing cookies without consent when visiting a webpage and not having a "refusal

subjects infringes Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. The AEPD fined the data processor in an amount of 4,000 Euro for the violation of Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. Since the

Mr. A.A.A., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infringement of article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD and considered very serious a prescription

websites do not have a legitimate interest to store credit card data under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. On 6 September 2018, the CNIL issued a Recommendation on

ASSOCIATION *** ASSOCIATION. 1, with NIF G98925795, for an infringement of article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of 3,000 euros

fined a political party about €1000 (BGN 2000) for processing personal data without a legal ground as required by Article 6(1) GDPR, after hiring a handwriting

2022, A.A.A. (hereinafter, the claiming party) filed a claim with the Spanish Data Protection Agency. The claim is directed against XFERA MÓVILES, S.A. with

these 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

rely on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Secondly, the DPA recalled that, according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, processing of personal data on the basis of a legitimate

lack of valid consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Thus, it imposed VODAFONE a fine of EUR 75,000 under Article 83(5) GDPR, being indecisive whether there

for performance of a contract," and "necessary for compliance with a legal obligation," under Articles 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b), and 6(1)(c) GDPR respectively. The

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) of the mentioned norm

MÓVILES, S.A. (MASMOVIL), with NIF A82528548, for an infringement of article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD, a fine of 60

with the rules in Article 6 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation [1]. 1, letter a. Below is a more detailed review of the case and a justification for

accordance with Article 6 (1). 1, letter b, if the processing is necessary to comply with a legal obligation in accordance with Article 6 (1). 1, letter c,

company 's actions were a breach of Article 6(1) GDPR. Article 6(1) does not apply here because they failed to prove that they had a lawful basis for processing

infringed Articles 6.1 (a) and 5.1 (a) of the GDPR, in breach of Articles (a) and (a) of the GDPR¬, in accordance with Article 71 (1) (a) and (b) respectively

therefore breaching Article 6 GDPR, as well as Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Thirdly, Article 30 GDPR stipulates that the controller must keep a register of processing

to note that only Article 6(1)(a) GDPR allows for such a derogation from Article 32. The other legal basis in Article 6 restricts a data subject’s „disposition

agreed to initiate a sanctioning procedure for the one claimed by the allegedinfringement of article 6.1.a), typified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD.FIFTH:

ESPAÑA, S.A.U., with NIF A80907397, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 1. APPOINT Mr

for the alleged infringement of Article 13.1, in relation to Articles 6.1(a) and 8.1 of the RGPD and in relation to Article 7 of Organic Law 3/2018, on Data

taken place in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1, letter e, and Article 6, para. 1, cf. Article 4, point 11. The Danish Data

2. Infringement of art. 6.1. GDPR: APPLICATION /7 [Plaintiff] further bases its decision on an infringement of Article 6.1. GDPR, to know that the lawfulness

AEPD imposed a fine of € 6.000 for unlawful processing data from a public registry without a legal basis under Article 6 GDPR. A citizen filled a complaint

with Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Thus, the Danish DPA held that the processing was also not following the principles of Article 5(1)

his compliance with the principles of article 5 par. 1 of the GDPR. 5. Furthermore, Article 6 para. 1 of the GDPR provides, among other things, that the

Where a controller envisages a processing operation having several purposes and seeks to obtain the data subject's consent under Article 6(1)(a) of the

issued Canary Click with a warning and ordered them to bring URL 1 and their privacy policy in line with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR within a month. The AEPD also

data subject’s consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, which in turn meets the conditions for consent laid out in Article 7 GDPR. The AEPD highlighted that this

adequacy, or in accordance with Article 46, Article 47 or Article 49 (1); the second and second subparagraphs of paragraph 1, the indication of the appropriate

Protection Directive (95/46/EC), which contained a remarkably similar provision to the new Article 6(1)(f) of GDPR. This test breaks down into three parts, making

requirements of Article 6(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR, which cannot be superseded by relying on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR? Is Article 5(1)(c) GDPR (data

as a legal basis under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR where only consent should be the relevant legal basis. The NO DPA also considers that data cannot be a commodity

interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. On the erasure obligations under Article 17 GDPR, the CJEU held that under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR SCHUFA will be under

Directive and Articles 6(1)(a) and 7 GDPR, in the lights of Article 4(11) and Recital 32 GDPR. Following this report, the GBA issued a decision confirming

that Wind Tre had violated the following articles of the GDPR: Articles 5(1), 5(2), 6(1)(a), 7, 12(1), 12(2), 24 and 25. It subsequently fined Wind Tre 16

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

laws (like § 151 GewO) and GDPR? Is a prediction of a political affiliation a "special category of data" under Article 9(1) GDPR? The decision of the DSB

Ordinance Article 5, paragraph Article 5 (2) 1, letter c and letter f., Article 5, paragraph Article 6 (1) (a) Article 32 (1), (1), (33) 1 and 35, para. 1. Below

rely on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR in the context of its offering of the Facebook Terms of Service, and to include an infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR” (Para

violates §§ 307 para. 1, para. 2 no.1 in connection with Art. 6 para. 1 sentence 1 DSGVO. Art. 6 para. 1 sentence 1 DSGVO and against § 1 UKlaG in conjunction

as a 'legitimate interest' pursued by Meta pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Lastly, the CJEU noted that the fact that Article 6(1)(a) and Article 9(2)(a)

decryption, a defendant's smartcard and corresponding software are required as well as a receiver such as a receiver or a CI-Plus module together with a compatible

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 whose

compliance with the principles of Article 5 GDPR and that they could be based on the legal basis of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The BVwG ruled that the principle

legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, they must still comply with data protection principles under Article 5 GDPR. In Croatia, many employers

Bobek is also of the opinion that Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR do not preclude national rules from laying down, without any limit in time

breached Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for lack of legal basis, Article 21 for lack of considering an objection, Article 13 for lack of information and Article 24 for

DPC decisions, Meta shifted its legal basis from Article 6(1)(b) GDPR (contract) to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest) for most of its processing

consent, in line with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The Court recalled that Article 31 of the Croatian Law on the Implementation of the GDPR stipulates that the

9(1) GDPR. The preliminary questions concern the issue whether the existence of a legal obligation – Article 6(1)(c) GDPR – or a public interest – Article

controllers to have breached Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 9(1) GDPR, as well as Article 12 and 13 GDPR for having unlawfully contacted a data subject after the

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 complaint

unsolicited direct marketing messages received by subscribers. In the ICO's view, is a clear attempt to capitalise on, and profiteer from, the national health crisis

solution. The DPA held that the controller could not obtained a valid consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR for the use of cookies when the first solution was used

Officer) has fined Leads Works Ltd 250000 GBP (€291,237) for sending more than 2.6 million nuisance and unlawful direct marketing text messages to customers without

requirements of Article 6(1)(a) of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, which cannot be replaced by invoking Article 6(1)(b) thereof? 2

is also a claim for damages by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, since there have been violations of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 34 GDPR

and application of Article 20.1 c) by the AEPD implies the exclusion of the weighting required by the legitimizing basis of Article 6.1.f) of the RGPD and

deliberation on Article 82 of the Loi n° 78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés. Could the CNIL decide a prohibition

three-part test (Article 6 GDPR) - i) Legitimate interest ii) Necessity and iii) Balancing tests. The Commissioner has established that there is a legitimate

e-mail box without a legal basis, cf. the Privacy Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter f, for failure to assess protests, cf. , cf. Article 13. Background to

in Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as the company processed personal data without having any of the legal titles listed in Article 6(1) GDPR

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

that the infringement of Article 5.1 b) GDPR and Article 6.1 a) GDPR is proven. However, the controller expressly acknowledges a serious mistake in which

SOLUCIONES ENERGÉTICAS, S.A., with NIF A85818797, for a violation of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of 50,000 euros (fifty

accountability with the principles of Article 5(1) and par.2 in conjunction with Article 6(1) GDPR. B. imposes on NEW YORK COLLEGE S.A. the effective, proportionate

defendant wrongfully relied on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as a legal basis and acted contrary to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. After the defendant rejected

statement of the law, Article 10 defines the Authority’s competence in compliance with Article 55 GDPR.Article 55 GDPR provides for a restriction only in

The Danish DPA found that Securitas A/S had a legal basis under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for disclosing the personal data of an employee to the Police Intelligence

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

controllers lacked a legal basis for processing in violation of Article 6(1) GDPR and failed to inform data subjects pursuant to Article 13 GDPR. In addition

violated Article 6(1) GDPR, since the newsletter was sent without a legal basis. First, the data subject had not given consent, Article 6(1)(a). Moreover

specific categories of information in Article 8 (1) and (5) of Directive 95/46 or in Article 9 (1), Article 10 (1) and Article 10 of Regulation 2016/679, the

the necessary consent was obtained, which is not acceptable under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The Danish DPA assumed that Leadwise placed its own and third-party

contract lacked a legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR. In light of this, the DPA issued a fine of €70,000 to másLUZ Energía (SIE) by virtue of Article 83(5) GDPR

paragraph 1 (a) Article 6 Regulation (EU) 2016/679, as well as legitimate interests, cf. Item 6 the same articles of law, cf. paragraph 1 (f) Article 6 Regulation

and ordered them to pay a court fee of €30. Article 96(1)(1) ZVOP 2 (infringements of the provisions of Article 83(4) GDPR) (1) A fine of between EUR 100

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 a cross-company

based on point 1. Article 9 Act no. 90/2018 and item a of the first paragraph. Article 6 Regulation (EU) 2016/679. As is the case here, point 6 comes into

(on the basis of Articles 35, 36 and 37 of ZDR-1 in connection with point d or f of Article 6 (1) of the GDPR)? On the basis of the information you have provided

the processing is consent in accordance with Article 6 Paragraph 1 Letter a GDPR. According to point 4.4.6. According to the data protection declaration

by the Contentious Chamber. 7Ibidem. Decision 37/2024 — 6/6 er In accordance with article 108, § 1 of the LCA, an appeal against this decision may be lodged

rectification request in breach of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The DPA therefore issued a fine of a total amount of approx. €40,000 along with an order to apply coercive

of the data subject (Article 6.1.a or 9.2.a of the GDPR) or necessary for the execution of a contract (article 6.1.b of the GDPR); - Second: the personal

accordance with Article 5.1.a) j° Article 6.1 of the GDPR, any processing of personal data have a legal basis. Article 6.1 of the GDPR stipulates that

one of the conditions set out in Article 6(1) GDPR? On the topic of non-material damages 4) Does Article 82(1) GDPR have a specific or general preventive

processing there in accordance with Article 6(1)(1)(a) of the GDPR (cf. Frenzel in Paal/Paulick , GDPR, 3rd edition 2021 Art. 6 para. 11). This results from the

conjunction with Article 91(1)(1) ZVOP-1, for which a fine of EUR 830.00 is prescribed, taking into account Article 91(2) ZP-1 and Article 119(1) ZVOP-2 on the application

fulfilled. established in article 6.1 of the RGPD, which indicates: C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/6 << 1. The treatment will

Belgian DPA dismissed a complaint based on article 95, §1, 3 LCA because the data subject did not adequately prove a breach of the GDPR. The Belgian DPA stated

2016/679, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 4 of the Act, and thus the powers of the Data Protection Authority, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 39 of the Act, covers the

2016/679, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 4 of the Act, and thus the powers of the Data Protection Authority, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 39 of the Act, covers the

based on Article 3, Clause 2, Article 5, Clause 1 of the Data Regulation "a", "b" and point 2, Article 6, point 1, point "a", Article 7, Article 27, point

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE A.A.A., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 6 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of €10,000 (ten

DPA fined a company €38,800 for unlawfully disclosing personal data from a surveillance footage, thus breaching Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6. The company

basis for the above processing was Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. The plaintiff was the owner of a flat in a residential complex, where the

initiate a sanctioning procedure against the claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH:

Administrative court held that the consent given to a first controller under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR to transfer the data to a second controller does not extend to the

all phone calls cannot be considered necessary under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and Article 5(1)(c) GDPR given the intrusive nature of the processing compared

share their location, in violation of Article 5 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 7 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, and Article 25 GDPR. The DPA, however, claimed that the

that these services are based on a different legal basis Art. 6 (1) GDPR than the consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit. a GDPR was based. services on were used

(Considering 40 GDPR), Article 6.1 of the GDPR is therefore applicable and not RD 1720/2007 used by the defendant. Thus, the aforementioned article 6.1 GDPR establishes

rely on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR for processing such data, in the sense that the processing was necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a public

As a result, the consent did not meet the requirements of Article 4(11) GDPR, and thus the controller could not rely on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR as a legal

Paragraph 1 lit. a. Article 6 (1) (a), Article 7 (1) and (2), Article 12 (1), Article 13 (1) (c), Article 57 (1) (a) and (h), Article 58 (1) (c) . 1 b and

regulation's article 6, subsection 1, letter a, and article 4, no. 11, cf. the regulation's article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letter a. On this

of section 6 of article 45 of the LOPD so that within a month from this act of notification: 2.1.- COMPLY with the provisions of article 6.1 of the LOPD

regulation's article 6, paragraph 1, letter a, and article 4, no. 11, cf. the regulation's article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letter a. The

***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 6.1 and another of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 letters a) and b) of the RGPD, a fine of €1,500 (€1

Regulation, hereinafter: GDPR ), OJ No. L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1; §§ 1 paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, 18 paragraph 1 as well as 24 paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of

conformity with Article 5.1. c), Article 6.1., Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. e) and Article 13.2. a) of the DGPS pursuant to Article 101 of

concluding the contract. In this regard, there was no breach of Articles 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) GDPR. Second, the DPA determined that the documents signed by the data

party. Therefore, the controller breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 7 GDPR, and Article 130 of the Italian privacy code, since the

Coolblue could therefore not rely on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR as a legal basis for the processing of data subject’s personal data. However, the Court stated that

in particular also not a case of Art. 6 Para. 1 S. 1 lit. f. GDPR (predominant legitimate interests of the person responsible or a third party). According

according to the circumstances of this case, a controller did not violate Articles 4(11), 6(1)(a) and 7 GDPR by using a pre-ticked box, because the purpose of

the processing is based pursuant to Article 6(1)(a); d) breach of Article 6(1)(b) of RODO in conjunction with Article 81 of PrA by its erroneous application

shall obtain in advance a consent from an individual in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR for the processing of photographs in a way that can easily identify

it had a legitimate interest pursuant to and if this is necessary and proportional. Hence, it appeared the Court referred to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Moreover

data for the purposes of its legitimate interests in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Therefore, the data subject must be considered to have objected

concerned. The DPA also found a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, as well as Article 7 GDPR and Article 12(1) GDPR for not having published

data are set out in Article 6 of the GDPR . Insofar as relevant here, the processing is lawful under Article 6 (1) (a) of the GDPR if the data subject

processor as per Article 4(7) GDPR, Article 4(8) GDPR, and Article 28(3) GDPR. Therefore, the service provider acted as a data controller in its relations with

“legitimate interest” provided for in Article 6.1, f) of the GDPR. 33. In accordance with Article 6.1, f) of the GDPR and the case law of the Court of Justice

of Article 11.7a(1) of the Telecommunications Act (Tw) and Article 5 (1) (a), 6 paragraph 1, 7, 13 and 14 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In

the transmission of a pet owner's data from a veterinarian to the VTX lawful under Article 6(1)(b) and (f) GDPR and Article 6(4) GDPR or does such processing

(2) GDPR (accountability) II.1.1. Article 5, paragraph 1, a) (lawfulness) j° Article 6, paragraph 1 GDPR II.1.1.1. Findings in the Inspection Report 11

paragraph 1. Article 8 of the law, cf. Article 5 of the regulation. In number 1 Paragraph 1 Article 8 of the law, cf. point a, paragraph 1 Article 5 of the

of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, and to bring its processing into compliance with Article 6(1) GDPR. Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR, and

consent [Article 6(1)(a)], due to the nature of the employer-employee relationship.' 3. Rationale 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 According to Articles 4(1) and 4(2)

processing, the DPA found a breach of the principles set out in Articles 5(1)(a) GPDR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR. For reasons stated

the basis of consent, cf. Article 6 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 9 (1) (a) and Article 9 (1) 2, letter a. 4.1.1. number of users With the

“legitimate interest” provided for in Article 6.1, f) of the GDPR. 25. In accordance with Article 6.1, f) of the GDPR and the case law of the Court of Justice

purposes as provided for in Article 89(1) ("storage limitation"); [...] Art. 6 para. 1 GDPR: Article 6: Lawfulness of processing 1. Processing shall be lawful

B., with NIF *** NIF.1, for a violation of Article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, and classified as a very serious, for the

Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) GDPR. The Italian DPA ordered the controller to erase personal data and stop the processing pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) and

that under Article 82 (1) and (2) GDPR, any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of a violation of the GDPR is entitled

of article 6 of the GDPR, a second violation of article 28 of the GDPR and a third violation of article 17 of the RGPD, typified in articles 83.5 a), 83

implementation of provisions of the “e-Privacy Directive”) and article 6.1.a. GDPR. 3In accordance with Article 61 of the WOG, the Disputes Chamber hereby informs

personal data and in a violation of Article 6 GDPR, as data subjects' consent was not collected in advance. Pursuant to Article 83 GDPR, the Italian DPA fined

breaching Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 7 GDPR. And due to the incorrect approach to the processing operations, also of Article 25(1)

the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 1, a) of the GDPR, which allows the processing of personal data to be based, can only result from a express consent

violated Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(a)(f) GDPR and imposed a fine of €5,000. The motivation stated that Articles 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(a)(f) were

promotional activities in its interest. The DPA also found a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 130(1) and (2) of the Italian Privacy Code (Legislative

DPA proposed a settlement to a controller asking them to modify their cookie banner in order to comply with Article 4(11), 6(1)(a) and 7 GDPR. On 19 July

their right. This amounted to a violation of Article 5 (1)(a), Article 12, Article 13, Article 14 GDPR and Article 21 GDPR. Therefore, on the basis of all

powers under Article 58(2) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for violations of Articles 5(1)(e), 6(1)(f), 12(1) and 13(1)(d) GDPR. Share your comments

management, - Article 12 (1) of the GDPR, as it did not provide transparent and understandable information, - Article 15 (1) and Article 17 (1) of the GDPR, Article

confidentiality”);” Art. 6 Para. 1 GDPR reads: “Article 6 Lawfulness of processing Processing is only lawful if at least one of the following Conditions are met: a) The data

out. Therefore, the DPA confirmed a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 7 GDPR and of Article 130 of the Italian Privacy Code for

comply with section 5.1(b) of the MDR, and for failure to comply with section 5.1(a) of the MDR. and 5.1(b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the MDR

basis of consent, Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. In particular, Article 6 (1) (c) (legal obligation of the controller and Article 6 (1) (e) GDPR (public interest)

unlawful under Article 6(1) GDPR: A user's consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR could not be considered valid under Articles 4(11) and 7 GDPR, especially since

authorization to make a credit rating of the complainant in question could have been based on point 1. Article 9 of the Act, cf. Article 6 (a) of the Regulation

the DPA determined that the legal grounds of Article 6(1)(b), 6(1)(c), Article 6(1)(d) and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR were not applicable in this case. It also

documents on the basis of Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR, without making it mandatory for customers to obtain a customer card as a prerequisite for the fulfilment

Article 25 (1) and (2) GDPR; b. a breach of Article 12(1) and (6) GDPR, Article 13(1) and (2) GDPR and Article 14(1) and (2) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article

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. The controller

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

processing could be based on the Article 6(1)(c) “compliance with a legal obligation” or Article 6(1)(e) GDPR “the performance of a task carried out in the public

concluded after July 1, 2016, articles L.211-1, L.212-3, L.212-1, L.241-1, R.212-1 / 1 °, L .111-1, L.111-2, L.111-3, L.221-5, L.221-6, L.221-7, L.221-13

respect the prohibition under Article 9 (1) GDPR and without relying on any specific exemptions under Article 9 (2) (4) GDPR. Feel free to add your comment

cases set forth by art. 6(1) (c)(e) GDPR. Furthermore, given that the school was not complying with a legal obligation, nor performing a task carried out in

information in accordance with Article 13 GDPR. In addition, the HDPA found that the Ministry violated the obligation of Article 35(9) GDPR in relation to the expression

should not have relied on a legitimate interest but on Article 6(1)(e), as the processing is carried out in order to comply with a task of public interest

energy suppliers cannot rely on Article 6(1)f GDPR to collect customer data in a data pool to determine if a customer considers a longterm contractual relationship

breaches to the DPA, cf. Article 33(1)? The DPA held that Innovation Norway did not have a legal basis as per Article 6(1)(f) GDPR to conduct the credit ratings

responsible is subject. In contrast to Article 6 (1) (b) GDPR, Article 6 (1) (c) GDPR with “legal obligation” does not mean a contractual obligation based on

fact that the processing of the controller relied on Article (6)(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(c) GDPR as legal basis affects the holding of the DPA since

because the controller relied solely on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. Whatsapp IE has consequently infringed Article 6(1) GDPR by unlawfully processing personal data”

for the performance of a contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) and for legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Article 6(1)(b) GDPR In its original draft

violated the GDPR and the consent given through such a banner cannot be considered a valid consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 4(11) GDPR. Further

processing entailed a legitimate interest for fraud prevention under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Did the company’s policy breach Article 6 or any other articles

the legal grounds in Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. The President of the Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) stated that he cannot make a decision regarding the

rely on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR as a legal basis. This made the processing also unlawful under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. The HDPA fined the municipality €1,000 for

Section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) and Article 4(1) GDPR. Pursuant to the FOIA and the GDPR, the ICO balanced the right to information and the

had no legal basis as per Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and that they had failed to inform the employee sufficiently as per Article 13 GDPR. Consequently, they were

virtue of Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. Indeed, it further is justified that the task carried out in the public interest under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR does not constitute

of Articles 5, par. 1, letter a) and c); 6, par. 1, letter c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, letter b) and Article 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, caused by the

to process it under Article 6(1)(f), or a public interest to process it under Article 6(1)(e). The AEPD also held that Mrs AAA had exercised her right to

Violation of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR The LfDI found a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR. When weighing the interests in the context of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, it must

the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The processing must also be necessary for this purpose. The controller considered that it was “simply a question of whether

as per Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The DPA further held that the company failed to: provide the data subjects with required information, as per Article 13 terminate

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 housing

been grounded on compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject, under Article 6 (1) (c) GDPR. In this case, the compliants' personal

threat of a potential data misuse suffice to claim damages under Article 82 GDPR? The court held that neither §26(1) BDSG nor Article 6(1)f GDPR legitimize

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 wishes

be processed in accordance with Article 6 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 (a) to (f). Pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation

data subject lodged a complaint against Google. The DPA noted that the lawful basis was Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and referred to the Article 29 Group's guidelines

rely on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR in the context of its offering of the Instagram Terms of Use, and to include an infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR” (Para 137)

Articles 6(1)(c) or 6(1)(e). Therefore, the DPA issued a sanction of €2000 against the Municipality for violating Articles 6(1)(c), (e), 6(2), and 6(3)(b)

par. 1, letter a) and c); 6, par. 1, letter c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, letter b); 9, par. 1, 2, 4, of the Regulation; Articles 2-ter, par. 1 and 3

violated Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) GDPR. In addition, the AEPD decided to impose a fine of 1.000 € in accordance with Article 83(5)(a) GDPR by taking into

prevail (Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f GDPR). In this context, Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. c GDPR in conjunction with the PMG and Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f GDPR relevant: The

follows: Article 5(1)(c) , Article 5(1)(e) and Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR The DPC found that Airbnb did not validly rely on Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR as the

any legal basis as required by Article 6(1) GDPR. The Bulgarian DPA examined a complaint lodged by a citizen, V.V., against a company providing utility services

information of a debtor in compliance with art. 5 and 6 of the GDPR? The DPA held that Regione Campania violated art 5(1)(a)(c), art. 6(1)(c)(e), art. 6(2) and

public areas without consent, breaching Article 6(1) GDPR. The data subject’s neighbor installed cameras on a shared landing without consulting the homeowner’s

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

based on a legal basis as provided in Article 6.1. GDPR. The Disputes Chamber will determine that the defendants rightly invoke Article 6.1. f) GDPR 7, since

DPA had issued a reprimand for each of the above discussed shortcomings. As a response to the DPA's decision, the controller adopted a number of supplementary

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