Search results

not apparent why the principle laid down in Article 72(1) GDPR should be deviated from. Article 72(1) GDPR stipulates that the Board shall take decisions

within the meaning of Article 72(1) GDPR. The GDPR does not contain detailed content requirements for the RoP. Article 74(2) GDPR only stipulates that the

agreement on joint responsibility as required under Article 26(1) of the GDPR. Article 33(1) GDPR outlines that controllers (as defined above) have an

specific rules. Article 82 GDPR introduces a right to compensation for damage caused as a result of an infringement of the GDPR. Article 82(1) contains the

one of the 'other administrative or non-judicial' remedies, which Article 78(2) GDPR refers to. If the DPA decides to uphold their decision, they will

decisions in Category:Article 74 GDPR For more on this point, see Article 72 GDPR. Dix in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 74 GDPR, margin number 7 (C

provided for in Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or, as the case may be, Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, and consent is withdrawn according to Article 7(3) GDPR, data must be

meaning Recital 86 GDPR). However, Article 34 GDPR does not provide a specific deadline of 72 hours as is the case in Article 33 GDPR. Instead, timelines

categories 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

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

shall apply from 25 May 2018. There is no relevant recital for Article 99 GDPR. Article 99 GDPR sets out the dates of the Regulation's entry into force and

relevance of Article 29 GDPR were rooted in the fact that Article 28(3)(b) GDPR already seems to cover much of the scope of Article 29 GDPR. More specifically

protected by Article 96 GDPR if it is found to be incompatible with other GDPR provisions. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 96 GDPR It follows

under the GDPR. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 94 GDPR Kühling, Raab, in Kühling, Buchner, GVO BDSG, Article 94 GDPR, margin numbers

process them. This was already the case under Article 8(7) of the DPD, the precursor of Article 87 GDPR. In many Member States, the processing of NIN and

recitals for Article 97 GDPR. Article 97 GDPR imposes a "comprehensive reporting obligation" upon the Commission. The first paragraph of Article 97 GDPR sets out

possible "legitimate interest" under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Equally to Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(2) and (3) GDPR require that Union or Member State

accordance with Article 58(2) [GDPR]”. These is a reference to the information that SAs must keep in internal records according to Article 57(1)(u) GDPR. The report

in the EDPB's Rules of Procedure (“RoP”). Article 33(1) RoP stipulates that in “accordance with Art 76 (1) GDPR”, discussions of the Board and of expert

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

Category:Article 67 GDPR See EDPB, State of Play - IMI for GDPR purposes, 27 June 2018 (available here). See EDPB, 2019 Annual Report, Section 4.3.1 (available

subject to the GDPR or, in cases where they are not established in the EU, act within the material and territorial scope of the GDPR. Article 48 GDPR refers to

non-material damage. Article 32(1) GDPR reflects the principle of integrity and confidentiality enshrined in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The controller and the

from Article 6(1) GDPR and comply with the principles enshrined in Article 5 GDPR. Additionally, the processing will still be subject to other GDPR provisions

(e.g. Article 25 (1) and (2), Article 28(1), Article 32(1) GDPR, Article 89(1) GDPR). These measures can also be regarded as measures under Article 24(1)

the information society service(s)." According to Article 4(25) GDPR, which in turn refers to Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535, an "information society

to in Article 46(2)(d) GDPR, contractual clauses referred to in Article 46(3)(a) GDPR, or binding corporate rules within the meaning of Article 47 GDPR

accordance with Article 98'. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 98 GDPR The CJEU has yet to rule on Article 98 GDPR. Nonetheless, the

of Article 15(1)(c) GDPR, which permits in certain cases that the information provided is limited to "categories of recipient[s]": Article 15 GDPR is a

important to note that Article 13(1)(f) GDPR, Article 14(1)(f) GDPR, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR and Article 15(2) GDPR, make specific reference to transfers of personal

unlike delegated acts made under Article 92 GDPR. Article 93(2) GDPR explicitly provides for the application of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011

Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 75 GDPR, p. 1105 (Oxford University Press 2020). Dix, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 75 GDPR, margin number 6

exchange of knowledge between them. This way, Article 50 GDPR expands the exhortation under Article 57(1)(g) GDPR that calls for cooperation between EU DPAs

proposed amendments to the GDPR (pursuant to Article 70(1)(b) GDPR). Although not explicitly mentioned in Article 69(2) GDPR, the requirement that the Board

practices published under Article 70(3) GDPR. Though Article 70(3) GDPR already obliges the EDPB to make these public, Article 71(2) GDPR ensures that the public

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

will not have to submit another request for erasure under Article 17(1)(b) GDPR. Article 7(4) GDPR provides some useful guidance on the factors to be taken

falls outside the scope of Article 57 GDPR should be deemed inadmissible for the purposes of Article 31 GDPR. Article 31 GDPR can be read as a supporting

establishes an EU-wide penalty regime for violations under Article 83 GDPR, Article 84(1) GDPR dispenses with complete harmonisation. It does, however, provide

Recital 167 GDPR and Article 291 TFEU, the aim of implementing acts is to “ensure uniform conditions for implementing” the GDPR. In its GDPR Certification

binding decision under Article 66 GDPR, at the request of the Hamburg SA which adopted provisional measures under Article 66(1) GDPR, based on its consideration

situation, Article 95 GDPR will not be relevant, and the GDPR applies as normal. Notably, Recital 173 GDPR, which relates to Article 95 GDPR, omits reference

However, Article 5(1)(d) GDPR gives the controller some leeway to continue processing inaccurate data - see more details under Article 5(1)(d) GDPR. Article

from any of the GDPR’s protections. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 39 GDPR Just as Article 38 GDPR, Article 39 GDPR also shows similarities

decisions pursuant to Article 65 GDPR (Article 70(1)(t) GDPR). Article 68 GDPR is the first of nine Articles (Articles 68-76 GDPR) governing the EDPB set

first glance, Article 92 GDPR's wording seems to be in conflict with Article 290(1) TFEU, but in actuality it is not. Article 92(2) GDPR must be read in

accordance with Article 58(1) GDPR. Article 90 GDPR was drafted with a view to regulate potential conflicts between the application of the GDPR on the one hand

subjects - which would be counterproductive. Article 11 GDPR is meant to address this matter. Under Article 11(1) GDPR, when a processing operation does not or

affected since, under Article 28(1) GDPR, a controller shall only use processors providing the same standards under Article 25 GDPR. Manufacturers or producers

64(2) GDPR). The remaining paragraphs of Article 64(3)-(8) GDPR lay down substantive rules and a detailed procedure for the EDPB’s opinions. Article 64(1) GDPR

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

Articles 4(11), 6(1)(a), 7 and 8 GDPR. For the definition of 'consent', see the more commentary under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 7 GDPR. For the definition

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 38 GDPR, p. 707 (Oxford University Press 2020). Bergt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 38 GDPR, margin number

framework of voluntary cooperation provided for in Article 62(1) GDPR is partly supplemented by Article 62(2) GDPR, which contains several cases in which joint

compliance with the GDPR under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR or even ban it under Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. Therefore, complaints under Article 77 GDPR should extend to

with the GDPR (Article 31 GDPR). Direct liability of the representative is limited to the obligations set out in Article 30 and Article 58(1)(a) GDPR. Article

request (Article 61(5) GDPR), the requesting SA may adopt a provisional measure on the territory of its Member State under Article 55(1) GDPR. If the SA

controller is subject, under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. In line with the general objectives of the GDPR, as outlined in Article 1 GDPR Article 16 TFEU, SAs are also

Press 2020). Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. CJEU

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

resolution mechanism under Article 65 GDPR in connection with Article 63 GDPR is triggered (Article 60 (4) GDPR). Article 60(2) GDPR clarifies that also in

requirements of data minimization (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR). Under Article 30(1)(f) GDPR, where possible, the controller

access (Article 15 GDPR), rectification (Article 16 GDPR), deletion (Article 17 GDPR), restriction of processing (Article 18 GDPR), objection (Article 21 GDPR)

Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020). Tosoni, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article

other DPAs concerned. The BCR Lead the submits, following Article 64(1) GDPR and Article 64(4) GDPR, a draft decision to the EDPB. The EDPB, in turn, issues

difference between Article 42(1) GDPR and Article 42(2) GDPR is that in the former, the applicant for certification is subject to the GDPR, while in latter

complaint under Article 77(1) GDPR on behalf of the data subject and to represent the them before all supervisory authorities (“SA”) (Article 4(21) GDPR). Secondly

clear from the wording of Article 41(1) GDPR. Article 41(1) GDPR does not define accreditation. Nonetheless, Article 41(2) GDPR provides a criterion against

explicit wording of Article 81 GDPR does not limit its application to proceedings instigated either under Article 78 GDPR or Article 79 GDPR. Secondly, the

deadline of Article 36(1) GDPR, and it is still disputed whether the outcome of the procedure rather resembles that of Article 58(3)(a) GDPR or Article 58(3)(b)

proceedings under Article 79(1) GDPR where no subjective rights under the GDPR are concerned. For example, a data subject cannot use Article 79(1) GDPR to bring

the basis of (i) its legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) or (ii) the public interest (Article 6(1)(e) GDPR). Hence, data subjects may find themselves

elements in Article 2(1) are fulfilled, the GDPR applies unless the processing falls under one of the exemptions named in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) GDPR. The first

into force of the GDPR. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1073. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023)

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)

opening clause under Article 88(1) GDPR, any rules introduced must meet the criteria imposed by Article 88(2) GDPR. Lastly, Article 88(3) GDPR imposes an obligation

the SAs' tasks, please refer to Article 57 GDPR and for their powers please refer to Article 58 GDPR. See Recital 122 GDPR. In this respect, reference should

mentioned in Article 26(1), but also encompasses other obligations of controllers under the GDPR. EDPB: This extends to various obligations under the GDPR, including

According to the final paragraph in Article 49(1) GDPR, when none of the derogations described above (Article 49(1)(a-g) GDPR) is applicable, transfers to third

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

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

additional benefit of Article 14(1)(d) GDPR may be questionable, if one agrees that Article 14(1)(c) (see commentary on Article 13(1)(c) GDPR) already requires

Hence, Article 89(2) and (3) GDPR also allow for specific derogation to the GDPR for these purposes, as further detailed below. Article 89(1) GDPR provides

the application of the GDPR. You can find further details about the territorial scope in Article 3 GDPR. According to Article 1(2), the Regulation generally

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

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

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

the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 16 (available here) referring to Article 1(1)(b) Directive (EU) 2015/1535

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

surveillance cameras, it was therefore in breach of Article 37(1)(b) GDPR by not having a DPO. Article 37(1) GDPR specifies three conditions in which the designation

further details see Article 14(1)(d) GDPR. Similar to the ex-ante information in Article 13(1)(e) and 14(1)(e) GDPR, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR requires the controller

the establishment of SAs are set out in Article 51(1) and 52 GDPR, Article 54(1)(a) GDPR repeats that these should be legislated for through a Member State's

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

under Article 13 should not be too long. Article 12 GDPR may be limited by Union or national Law in accordance with Article 23 GDPR. Article 12(1) GDPR

must also be involved in the drafting of the DPIA under Article 35(2) GDPR and Article 39(1)(c) GDPR, and their advice should be recorded by the controller

with the support of the EDPB in accordance with Article 70(1)(b) GDPR. According to Article 45(5) GDPR, the continued monitoring referred to in paragraph

consent pursuant to point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2) or on a contract pursuant to point (b) of Article 6(1); and (b) the processing is

processing), Article 57 GDPR (tasks of SAs), Article 58 GDPR (powers of SAs), as well as Article 65 GDPR (dispute resolution by the board), Article 63 GDPR (consistency

this purpose (Article 52(4)(5)(6) GDPR). Elements of SAs' complete independence are also addressed in Article 53 GDPR and Article 54 GDPR. The CJEU in the

mechanism referred to in Article 63 GDPR (Article 28(8) GDPR). The Commission has made use of its power under Article 28(7) GDPR and published standard contractual

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

practice. Recital 1: The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right. Article 8(1) of the Charter

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

the 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

according to To 1): € 1.200,00 To 2): € 300,00 To 3): € 300,00 . . . In total: € 1.800 To 1): 3 days To 2): 1 day To 3): 1 day ... In total: 5 days Ad 1): Art.

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

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

articles 5.1.,b) juncto 24.1 and 9.2.a) juncto 7.3 of the RGPD; - that it is not necessary to pronounce one of the measures provided for in Article 100, §1 of

provisions of article 83.1 of the GDPR. In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR and article 76 of

prohibited by Article 9(1) of the GDPR. In order to process such data, the controller should have validly relied in one of the exceptions from Article 9(2). However

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

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

the GDPR. The dental practise violated the GDPR by not informing the DPA of the data breach within 72 hours and, thereby, violated Article 33 GDPR. The

referred to in Article 33(1) of the AVG.15 15 File note 1, Notification of personal data breach 7-2-2019. P 5. 3.4.3 Assessment Article 33(1) of the AVG provides

IMPOSE Ms. B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of the Article 5.1.c) and 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) and b) of the RGPD, a fine

***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

of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD typified in Article 83.5.a) of the RGPD and considered very serious, for the purposes of prescription, in Article 72.1.a)

foundation was responsible for violating Article 33 GDPR, and issued it with a warning pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. The AEPD did not find the former Secretary

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 33 of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD

infringement of the GDPR, articles: -12 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.b) of the GDPR and 72.1.k) of the LOPDGDD, and -5.1.c) of the GDPR, in accordance

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

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

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

provision(s): Regarding 1) - Article 5(1)(a) and (c) and Article 6(1) of the Data Protection Basic Regulation - DSGVO, OJ No L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1. Re 2) (a) Section

conditions of Article 6 (1) of the GDPR. This follows both from Article 21(1)(1)(2) of the GDPR, which refers to Article 6(1)(1)(e) and (f) of the GDPR as a possible

within the 72-hour time limit mandated by Article 33(1). Did the secretariat of the DPA breach its data security obligations under Articles 32(1), 33(1), and

under Article 4(12) GDPR. Second, the AP found that PVV Overijssel was obliged to notify the data breach to the AP within 72 hours pursuant to Article 33(1)

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

the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, in accordance with the provisions of Article 83.5 of the RGPD and 72.1.i) of the LOPDGDD, considered

infringement of article 5.1 d) of the RGPD because the due payment request was not made due to a quality problem of the data. IV Article 72.1.a) of the LOPDGDD

the presumed infringement of article 5.1 b) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, in relation to Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD. SECOND:

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

J10460640 , for aviolation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, in relation towith article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of

personal data by bank to the data subject's wife under Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR and Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR. An additional €50,000 was added for the violation

the same year, for alleged infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, proposing a fine of 50,000 euros. Vodafone

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

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)

with NIF G08564379, an infringement of article 5.1.b) GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 GDPR, in relation to Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of 5000 euros

case; (…)” IV Infringement of Article 6.1.a) of the GDPR Article 5, Principles relating to processing, of the RGPD states: "1. Personal data shall be: (a)

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

infringement in accordance with referred to in Article 72 of the LOPDGDD, which provides "1. Depending on what Article 83(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 are considered

of Article 6(1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the documentation in the file provides evidence that G.L.P. Instalaciones 86, S.L violated Article 6(1)

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

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

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

basis in line with Article 13(1)(d) GDPR. The DPA stated that it would impose a fine on the controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, if latter does

subjects, according to Article 33(1) GDPR and Article 34(1) GDPR? The PUODO held that the insurance company infringed the GDPR provisions, failing to notify

controller with €10,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €25,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. There is a pattern in the Spanish DPA resolutions

constitute a violation of Article 5 (1) (f) of the RGPD? For infringing Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 72(1)(a) LOPDGDD, the Spanish

imposed a fine of €60000 for the violating Article 5(1)(d) GDPR and €30000 for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in

authorities an infringement of Article 5 (1) (d) GDPR? The AEPD agreed to impose a penalty for infringement of Article 5 (1) (d) for lack of accuracy in

of 25,000 euros (Article 83, paragraph 2 GDPR; Article 100, §1, 13 ° WOG and Article 101 WOG). 18 55. Taking into account article 83 GDPR and the case law

confidentiality referred to in article 5.1.f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " Its article 72.1.a) considers it: “Violations considered very serious "1. In accordance with

Articles 2.1, 4 2), 5.1 c) and 57.1 a), f) and h) GDPR, to the extent necessary read in conjunction with Article 288(2) TFEU and Articles 4 § 1, 63, 72 and 100

provided for in Article 18 GDPR. As explained by the Court, Article 18(1) GDPR, in particular in paragraph (d), is linked to Article 21(1) GDPR, which guarantees

by the alleged violation of Article 5.1(f) of the GDPR, Article 5.1(b) of the GDPR, as set out in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FOURTH: On 10 June 2020, the

limitation period, article 72 of the LOPDGDD indicates: Article 72. Infractions considered very serious. "1. Based on the provisions of article 83.5 of Regulation

an infringement of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, and for the purposes of prescription, by article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD

imposed a fine of 20.000 EUR on IBERIA Airlines for the violation of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, when further sending unsolicited emails after a customer has requested

AEPD pursuant to Article 72(1)(m). The AEPD does not specify the provision of Article 21 on which it bases its decision. Article 21 GDPR states that the

data contained in article 5(f) and 32 the GDPR? The AEPD held that this offense is considered as ‘grave’ in accordance with Article 72(1)(k) LOPDGDD and

regard to Client 1 that data management - infringed Article 25 (1) to (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation, - infringed Article 32 (1) (b) of the General

the public interest, per Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and was also necessary for scientific research purposes under Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Thirdly, that the data

controller, in this case the public administration, breached Articles 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD examined a complaint submitted by an anonymous citizen

infringement of article 5.1(b), as defined in Article 83(5)(a) and considered for the purposes of the statute of limitations in Article 72(1)(a), a fine of

with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, in relation to Article 72(1)(a) a fine of EUR

for the infringement of Article 5.1 f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD and considered very serious in 72.1.a), for the purposes of

by the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: On

established in the articles 15 to 22 of the GDPR, regulated in article 64.1 of the LOPDGDD, according to the which: "1. When the procedure refers exclusively

the offense considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

controller violated Article 33(1) GDPR by failing to inform the DPA of the data breach. Second, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 28(1), (3) and

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

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

(1) GDPR? The AEPD found that publishing the image of the data subject without his consent was a violation of Article 6 (1) GDPR, and decided to fine the

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

considered a violation pursuant to Article 72(1)(m) of the LOPDGDD, which would be sanctioned according to Article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share

LOPDGDD in its article 72 indicates for the purposes of prescription: "Infractions considered very serious: "1. Based on the provisions of article 83.5 of the

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned

the alleged violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and article 32 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 and 83.4 of the GDPR. The initiation agreement

infringements of Article 5(1)(f), Article 24, and Article 32 GDPR, and to the objection of the IT SA on the possible infringement of Article 5(2) GDPR, the EDPB

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

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

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

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

infringement of Article 32 GDPR. Therefore, the Spanish DPA issued a warning sanction for each violation of Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR. AEPD highlighted

for the violation of Article 6 GDPR and € 4 000 for the violation of article 13, under the power conferred by Article 83(5) GDPR. Share your comments here

person in charge of the treatment, the violation of article 13 of the RGPD. In this sense, article 72.1.h) of the LOPDGDD, considers it very serious, for

council for an infringement of Article 32 GDPR. The AEPD dropped the case due to the time limitations outlined in Article 72 and 73 LOGPD. The access to the

(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

according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, are a Personal data and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In the article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

referred to as LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Upon notification of the aforementioned

lawful bases of Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) in particular, stating that the actions of the respondents were in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR because the complainant's

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

finepublic, as indicated in article 77.1. c) and 2. 4. 5. and 6. of the LOPDDGG: “ 1. Theregime established in this article will be applicable to the treatments

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

L. for the infringement of Article 13 GDPR (data privacy policy) and a warning penalty for the infringement of Article 7 GDPR regarding the collection of

breach Article 13 GDPR even if the contact form is not operational? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) held that the defendant, PSI, violated Article 13 GDPR by failing

Ministry of Tourism violated Article 33 GDPR by failing to report the aforementioned data breach, and Article 37(1) GDPR by not appointing a DPO (at the

of articles 83.1 and 83.2 of the RGPD must be observed. In turn, pursuant to article 83. 2.k GDPR, the circumstances described in article 76 LOPDGDD may

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notification of the Commencement Agreement

violation of Article 21 RGPD, by not effectively attending to the exercise of the mentioned right. On the other hand, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 72.1.k), qualifies

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

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

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

itself, that the information and measures mentioned in Article 33(1)(b) to Article 33(1)(d) GDPR must also be communicated to the data subject. However

communications, as per Article 21(1) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI), as well as for the infringement of Article 13 of the GDPR. The decision

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

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

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

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

safeguards of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR). The Court explained that the Directive and GDPR do not indicate that EU legislature has chosen to

the data is not obtained from the interested party (article 14). Article 13 of the GDPR states: "1. When personal data relating to him or her is obtained

controller €80,000: €50,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €30,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. The original fine of €80,000 was reduced

(definition) Article 5.1 : Principles of data processing Article 5.1.a : Principle of legality, objectivity and transparency Article 5.1.b : Principle

complaint - infringes Article 6(1) GDPR, by unlawfully processing the complainant's personal data, in relation to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, which governs the

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

withdrawal of consent under Article 7(3) GDPR. The Authority also considers the existence of a deletion request under Article 17 GDPR. The AEPD concludes that

referred to Article 5(1)(a) (principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency), Article 12(1), Article 7, Article 13 and Article 14 GDPR, the corresponding

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

rules on administrative procedures'. II Articles 1 and 2.1 of the RGPD provide as follows: "Article 1. 1. This Regulation lays down the rules on the protection

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

[The equivalent GDPR Article to Article 48(3)(a) EU GDPR is Article 46(3)(a) GDPR, and Article 50(1)(d) EU GDPR is Article 49(1)(d) GDPR.] Share blogs or

comes regulated in article 32 of the GDPR. II Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR establishes the following: "Article 5 Principles relating

Court found that customers’ order data is health data and fall within Article 9(1) GDPR. Amazon does not collect health data stricto sensu but it can draw

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

purpose limitation in accordance with Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter b GDPR (Paal/Pauly/Paal, 3rd edition 2021, GDPR Article 15 Rn. 24). The plaintiff has a right

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 for unlawful

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 the Judicial Institutions Department of the Ministry. Considerations 1.1 First of all, the court assesses whether the plaintiff is justifiably exempted

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

Protection besanction BBB , with NIF *** NIF.1 , for a violation of Article 58.1 of the GDPR,typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, with a warning sanction

provisions of Article 5.1 of the AVG, but concerns the entire AVG. 31. The aforementioned follows from the merger of Article 5.2 of the AVG and Article 24.1 of the

serious infringement in article 72.1.a) "The processing of personal data violating the principles and guarantees established in article 5 of the Regulation

out by the school). Article 9 GDPR, for having processed biometric data without any valid ground from Article 9(2). Article 13 GDPR, for not having informed

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

its article 72, it considers for the purposes of prescription, that they are: "Infractions considered very serious: 1. In accordance with Article 83(5)

"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

PS/00093/2019 for "alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Article 5.1(f) of the RGPD and Article 72.1(a) of the LOPDGDD". The respondent states in its second

party, respectively. III Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) “Principles relating to processing” of the GDPR establishes: "1. The personal data will

of article 39 bis 2 of the LSSI so that withinONE MONTH from the notification of this resolution:2.1. COMPLIES with the provisions of article 21.1 of the

obligation imposed on public authorities under Article 37(1) GDPR. This obligation is also within Article 34(1) and (3) of the Spanish data protection law

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the GDPR; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance

transactions are personal data under Article 4(1) GDPR and are as such subject to the right of access guaranteed by Article 15 GDPR. The DPA did not, however, explicitly

period ”. In this sense, article 77.1 c) and 2, 4 and 5 of the LOPGDD, indicates: 1. "The regime established in this article shall apply to the treatment

an infractionof article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) and classified as very serious toprescription effects in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD

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

of an infringement of Article 5 (1) (f) of the GDPR under (74345679) (f) of the GDPR, as set out in Article 83 (5) (a) of the GDPR. SECOND: To notify this

the AEPD's order to provide all necessary information as required in Article 58(1) GDPR. Following a complaint against the mobile network operator Xfera Móviles

legitimate basis a violation of GDPR? The Spanish DPA considered that the processing of personal data was in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR, as the worker had processed

regulated in article 32 of the GDPR, which regulates the security of the treatment. IV. Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR establishes