Search results

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

Category:Article 83 GDPR The wording “infringements of this Regulation” in Article 83(1) GDPR is slightly imprecise. In fact, Article 83(5)(d) GDPR also provides

deadline. Therefore, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 58(1) and Article 83(5)(e) GDPR. The DPA thus fined the controller €300. The Romanian DPA

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

basis in Article 6 GDPR. Neither consent nor any other legal basis were applicable. Consequently, pursuant to the Articles 83(5)(a) and 83(5)(e), the DPA

provide information and allow access to personal data according to Article 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The controller did not comply. Since the data controller did

Control SA violated the GDPR. The DPA highlighted that failing to provide such information upon request was in breach of Article 83(5)(e) in conjuncture with

typified in Article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers such as: 'failure to provide access in breach of Article 58(1)'. The same Article states that

sanction Vodafone in accordance with Article 83(5)(e) GDPR, for the non-compliance with an order pursuant to Article 58(1) GDPR. For this infringement, the AEPD

infringement of article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, in an initial assessment, the The following factors are considered to be concurrent: - No direct benefits (83.2 k) RGPD

non-compliance with this measure, the sanction referred to in Article 83, paragraph 5, letter e) of the Regulation shall be applied at the administrative level

had violated the provisions of Article 83(5)(e) GDPR, in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR by not granting the information

provide the information requested by the DPA violated Article 58(1) GDPR and Article 83(5)(e) GDPR. In conclusion, the Romanian DPA fined the controller

Romanian DPA found that the data controller has violated the provisions of Article 83 (5)(e), by not responding to the Romanian DPA's request of information, during

result, the controller was found in breach of GDPR Article 58(1) and was fined under Article 83(5)(e) GDPR approximately EUR 4,000 (RON 19795.6) and was

responding to the DPA's request for information, Dreamtime Call violated Article 85(3)(e) GDPR. The DPA fined Dreamtime Call approximately €2000 (RON 9.852,2),

to provide the requested information, in violation of Articles 83(5)(e) and 58(1)(a) and (e), and asked for the relevant information to be sent within five

provisions of art. 83 para. (5) lit. e) of the General Regulation on Data Protection and violation of the provisions of art. 83 para. (5) lit. b) of the General

liability in Article 83, Clause 5, Sub-paragraph e) of GDPR. 4.9. The official finds that the SIA is guilty of the violation provided for in Article 83, Clause

lit. a) and lit. e) and art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 83 sec. 1-3 and art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) and art. 83 sec. 5 lit. e) Regulation of the

2 lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1-3, art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) and art. 83 sec. 5 lit. e) in connection with Art. 31 and art. 58 section 1 lit. e) Regulation of the

BDSG, Article 5 GDPR, margin number 56 (C.H. Beck 2020) Resta, in Riccio, Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e Normativa Privacy - Commentario, Article 5 GDPR (Wolters

required under the GDPR (e.g. from a security perspective under Article 32 GDPR or as a means of data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) can get confused

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

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

accountability in Article 5(2) GDPR, paragraph (2) specifies further requirements in the general principle of transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, paragraph

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

decision, subject to an administrative sanction from the Garante under Article 83(5)(e) GDPR if the order is not complied with. Although the decision textually

all sanctions mentioned in Chapter VIII GDPR, i.e. the damages under Article 82 GDPR and fines under Article 83 GDPR. In any case, should fines for conduct

violation of article 6.1. RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a), and article 31, in relation to article 58.1.e), both of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.e) of the

contrast to Article 23(1)(e) GDPR, which sets out strict requirements for the Union or Member State's law restricting GDPR rights, Article 18(2) GDPR does not

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 33 GDPR, p. 642-643 (Oxford University Press 2020). According to Bensoussan, the drafting of Article 33 GDPR drew inspiration

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

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

personal data. The entity can rely on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. Equally to Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(2) and (3) GDPR require that Union or Member State

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

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

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

subject (Article 12(2) GDPR), respond and communicate the measures taken (Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR), the principle of freedom from costs (Article 12(5) GDPR)

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

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)

pursuant to Article 83(5)(e) GDPR. Second, the DPA considered the non-compliance with the summons to breach breach of Article 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The delay

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

with Article 13, Article 14 GDPR gives expression to the principle of transparency enshrined in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and further defined in Article 12 GDPR

are dealt with in Article 12(6) GDPR. It is unclear why Article 12(2) GDPR refers to Articles 15 to 22 GDPR, while Article 11(2) GDPR only refers to Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

accountability obligation enshrined in Article 5(2) GDPR. This theory is not totally convincing. In light of Article 5(2) GDPR, a reversal of burden of proof for

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

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

to in Article 42(5) and approved by the supervisory authority which is competent pursuant to Article 55 or 56 or by the Board pursuant to Article 63; (c)

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

See e.g. Articles 64(5), 65(5), 64(7) and 64(8) GDPR. Docksey, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 74 GDPR, p. 1099

processing (Article 36(3)(c) GDPR); the contact details of the Data Protection Officer (DPO) (Article 36(3)(d) GDPR); a copy of the DPIA (Article 36(3)(e) GDPR)

Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e normativa privacy – Commentario, Article 90 GDPR, p. 662 (Wolters Kluwer 2018). Piltz in Gola DS-GVO, Article 90 GDPR, margin numbers

adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45 GDPR shall be used, when it exists; second, appropriate safeguards under Article 46 GDPR, such as binding corporate

to in point (d) of Article 46(2) and in Article 28(8); (e) aims to authorise contractual clauses referred to in point (a) of Article 46(3); or (f) aims

legitimate purpose(s) (Article 5(1)(b)); lawfulness of processing (Article 6); adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary data (Article 5(1)(c)); limited

month to a request for mutual assistance (Article 61(8) GDPR) or to a request of joint operations (Article 62(7) GDPR). On 12 July 2021, the EDPB adopted an

ng, Article 62 GDPR, margin number 11 (Beck 2018, 2nd edition). Riccio, Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e normativa privacy – Commentario, Article 62 GDPR (Wolters

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

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

categories of data under Article 9 GDPR or data relating to criminal convictions and offences under Article 10 GDPR. Article 37(2) GDPR allows for the designation

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

Category:Article 47 GDPR Kuner, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Update of Selected Articles, Article 68 GDPR, p

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

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

objections pursuant to Article 92(5) GDPR. Article 92(5) GDPR imposes a further condition for the delegation of power, in line with Article 290(2)(b) TFEU. A

Commentary, Article 38 GDPR, p. 707 (Oxford University Press 2020). Bergt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 38 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck

protection law as enshrined in Article 5 GDPR must be complied with, and that the rights of the data subjects as found in the GDPR must also be available under

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

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)

limited to, security of processing (Article 32(1) GDPR) and the general principles of processing set out in Article 5 GDPR. In confirming the above interpretation

excluded, as Article 54(1)(e) GDPR addresses the question of reappointment. Therefore, the GDPR assumes a limited term for the position. Article 54(1)(e) GDPR

requirements. Although Article 40(5) GDPR mentions that the competent DPA will be determined through the application of Article 55 GDPR, the GDPR does not provide

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

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)’

protection principles (Article 5), determination of the legal basis for processing (Article 6), implementation of security measures (Article 32), notification

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

from the fact that, according to Article 68(3) GDPR, the Commission is not a member of the EDPB. Secondly, Article 68(5) GDPR explicitly states that the Commission

limit 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

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

and interpretation as in Article 22(3) GDPR. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 22 GDPR Article 20 of GDPR proposal, COM(2012) 11 final

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

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

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

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

senate of 15. Dezember 1983 - 1 BvR 209/83, 1 BvR 269/83, 1 BvR 362/83, 1 BvR 420/83, 1 BvR 440/83, 1 BvR 484/83 (in DE) (Abstract in EN) - ECLI:DE:BVerfG:1983:rs19831215

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

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

necessary. For the intentional infringement of Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 5(1)(a), (c), and (e) GDPR, the authority imposed a pecuniary penalty of €14

the fine, the criteria specified in the same article 83. 111. Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20, paragraph III, of the Data Protection

Appeals Board assessed if a fine could be imposed as per Article 83(5) GDPR, cf. Article 83(2) GDPR, and in which case, how large it should be. The Board

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

elements. Infringement of Article 6 and 9 GDPR qualifies for the maximum amount for administrative fines as set out in Article 83(5) GDPR: 20,000,000 € or 4%

According to Article 83.5 c of the data protection regulation, in the event of a violation of, among other things, article 44 in accordance with 83.2 administrative

art. 83, par. 5, letter. e), of the Regulation; CONSIDERING, on the basis of the foregoing, that the prerequisites for the application of art. 5, paragraph

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

criteria provided for by Article 83(2) GDPR and ensuring it is effective, proportionate and dissuasive in line with Article 83(1) GDPR. Adopted 117 10 BINDING

violating Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. The DPA of Berlin fined Deutsche Wohnen SE for violating Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, because

several paragraphs of Article 83 of the GDPR, as further summarised below. Fining of the ‘gravest infringement’. Article 83(3) GDPR provides that “[i]f a

relation to Article 5(1)(a) and (f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), (c), (d), (d), (e) and (f)

advertising purposes on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR, to be effective one week after notification

presenting the principles of data processing of Article 5(1) GDPR, underlined that, based on Article 5(2) GDPR, it is the data processor's responsibility to

as the obligation of accountability by article.5 par.2 GDPR, i.e. it violated fundamental principles of the GDPR on the protection of personal data. 8.

already has the information. Art. 83 para. 5 lit. a GDPR: Article 83: General conditions for the imposition of fines [...] 5. Fines of up to EUR 20 000 000

with article 83.5.a) of the RGPD and for the purposes of prescription in the article 72.1.e) of the LOPDGDD. -13, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of

manager who received all of A's e-mails picked out company-related e-mails and forwarded private e-mails to A's private e-mail address. In the relevant period

violated Article 5(1)(e) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SEVENTH: Notification of the aforementioned

LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 and 13 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: The database of this organization

According to Article 83.5 c of the data protection regulation, in the event of a violation of, among other things, article 44 in accordance with 83.2 administrative

te, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

regard to article 83.2 (k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with Article 83(2)(k) of

the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

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

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

with NIF ***NIF.1, for the alleged violation of Article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT R.R.R. as instructor. and, as

in particular of children was in breach of Article 5, Article 6, Article 8, Article 9, and Article 25 GDPR. Consequently, the DPA urgently imposed upon

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

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of article 6 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. FOURTH: On January 16, 2023, the aforementioned

disclosing personal data from a surveillance footage, thus breaching Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6. The company appealed to the Norwegian Privacy Appeals Board

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”

provisions of the article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, so they involve the commission of an infraction classified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, which provides the

with the principles of article 5 par. 1 GDPR. It is no coincidence that the GDPR includes accountability (see Article 5 para. 2 GDPR) in the regulation of

been taken up again at Article 5.1(b) of the GDPR under the Principles for the Processing of Personal Data (Chapter II). 16. Article 5.1(b) of the GDMP provides

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

they are processed (article 5.1 e) of the GDPR). 8.1.4. As for breaches of Articles 5.2. and 24 of the GDPR 88. Article 24.1 of the GDPR which covers Chapter

is established in article 6 of the GDPR, for which they suppose the commission of an offense classified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, which gives rise to

as 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)

infringements of Article 5.1.c) and Article 6.1 AVG. In particular, the Disputes Chamber found that relevant that: - the infringed Article 5.1.c) AVG contains

for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. The AEPD considered that the fine was proportional, since the GDPR establishes that fines

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

determining the amount of the fine, the criteria specified in the same article 83.'' 79. L’article 83 du RGPD prévoit : ''1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure

same article 83. 40. Article 83 of the GDPR provides: 1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this Article for

analyzes the criteria by Article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As to the nature and seriousness of the violation [article 83.2 a) of the GDPR], with regard to breaches

right to privacy. Health data are sensitive data covered by Article 9 GDPR. According to Article 137 of the Italian Data Protection Code, health data can

infringement 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

2023-06-30 According to article 83.5 c of the data protection regulation, in the event of a violation of among article 44 in accordance with 83.2 administrative

violation of Article 6 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, and classified as very serious for the purposes of prescription in article 72.1.b)

the GDPR. In light of this, the Court agreed with the DPA that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article

by article 32.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) V Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83.5 of the RGPD, the aforementioned article provides

conjunction with Article 56(5), read in conjunction with Article 56(6), read in conjunction with Article 56(7), read in conjunction with Article 56(8). in conjunction

relevance. According to article 83.5 c of the data protection regulation, in the event of a violation of among article 44 in accordance with 83.2 administrative

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR SAW The violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD implies the commission of the violations typified in article 83.5 of the

the provided for in article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD. SECOND:

shall take into account the criteria set out in Article 83 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/679. Article 83 of the RGPD provides for : 1. Each enforcement authority

entitled to erasure under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, as the data processing was not lawful. In any case, the requirements of Article 6 GDPR were no longer met 6

pursuant to Article 82 GDPR. According to the Advocate General’s opinion, even if the notion of damages should be interpreted broadly, Article 82 GDPR implies

fail to adhere to the data transparency (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR) and the data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) principles? Was the defendant required to

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

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

conferred on it by the provisions of Article 58 of the GDPR and Article 15 of Law 4624/2019. 2. As Article 5 of the GDPR defines the processing principles

violating Article 15(1) and (4) GDPR as well as the principle of accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR. The complainant requested twice via e-mail all

fine, the criteria 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

against the respondent, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.d) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. SIXTH: On October 28, 19, written allegations

to as ‘GDPR’), which replaced Directive 95/56, has been applicable since 25 May 2018. In accordance with the provisions of Article 15 (1) GDPR, the data

all" button be considered a breach of GDPR Article 4(11) and Article 7, read in conjunction with GDPR Article 5(3) -Privacy while the data controller gives

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

under Article 5 (1)(e)GDPR, the duty to provide information under Article 13 GDPR, and the obligation to carry out a DPIA under Article 35(3)(b) GDPR. The

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

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

the obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1), Article 32 (1 ) (b ) and (d) and Article 32 (2), both Article 83 sec. 4 lit. a regulation 2016/679

i) and 83 of the RGPD and Article 166 of the Code, has the corrective power to "impose a pecuniary administrative sanction pursuant to Article 83, in addition

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

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

is whether, according to the Personal Protection Ordinance, Article 83 No. 5, cf. Article 83 No. 2, an infringement fee must be imposed for a breach of

specified in Article 83 of the GDPR. 92. 92. Firstly, the restricted formation emphasises that, in this case, the criterion provided for in Article 83(2)(a) of

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

company for faulty website security (article 32 GDPR) and violation of the storage limitation principle (article 5(1)(e) GDPR). After a complaint in 2018, the

Under Article 83 (2), (5) and (7) of the General Data Protection Regulation: '... 2. Administrative fines shall be imposed in accordance with Article 58 (2)

c of the GDPR} d) Any violation committed by the controller or processor (article 83.2.e of the GDPR} e) The degree of cooperation established with the

a violation of Article 12(3) in relation to Article 15 GDPR. The Garante hence applied an administrative fine as per Article 83(5) GDPR. The amount of

with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD SECOND:

stakeholders did not follow the security principles as per Article 5(1)(f) GDPR (ed.: the decision actually reads 5(2)(f)), highlighting ‘the absence of an assessment

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 and

with a reprimand under Article 83(5) and required them to bring their processing in line with the requirements in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR in order to prevent

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 58. 1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. 2/5 SIXTH: The aforementioned agreement to commence

months to two years; in any case, the sanction set forth in article 83, paragraph 5, letter e) of the Regulation may be applied at administrative level.

for in Article 83, paragraph 5, of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation itself and Article 166, paragraph

therefore held that the controller violated Article 5(f) (principles of integrity and confidentiality) and Article 9 by communicating personal data, including

connection with Article 31, Article 58(1)(e) in connection with Article 83(1-3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of

Protection, pursuant to Article 83(3) and Article 83(4)(a) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679, in conjunction with Article 103 of the Personal Data

confidentiality of personal data (Article 5 (1) (f) of Regulation 2016/679) or rules for limiting data storage (Article 5 (1) (e) of Regulation 2016/679), resulting

the processing of personal data (83 (2) (k) GDPR); the fact that basic personal identifiers are affected (83 (2) (g) GDPR); the intentionality or negligence

respondent: a) for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1.a) of the GDPR, sanctioned in accordance with the Article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD and, b)

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On June 30, 2022, the claimed party presented

(Datenschutzbehörde - DSB) held that the doctor had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 9(1) and (2) GDPR as the patients had not given their ecplicit consent

described violates article 6.1. of the RGPD and is subsumable in the sanctioning type of the article 83.5.a, of the RGPD. IV Article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD

defendant is defined in Articles 83.4.a) and 83.4.b) respectively. 83.5.a) of the RGPD, precepts that they establish: Article 83.4: "Violations of the following

paragraph k) of Article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, Article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", it provides: "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k) of Regulation

violated Article 12 GDPR, as it did not facilitate the data subject´s exercise of their rights, especially the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR. In view

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 D. B.B.B. as

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: After the period granted for the formulation

for in art. 83, par. 5, letter e) of the Regulation. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, as well as Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of Legislative

infraction of Article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a penalty of APPRECIATION, in accordance with the provisions of Article 58.2 RGPD

the infringement - Article 83(2)(b) - and the fact that the infringement involved the “basic identifiers” of the claimant - Article 83(2)(g) - to be aggravating

fine of € 5 000 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

by Wind Tre a breach of Articles 5, 6 and 24 GDPR? Was the processing by Wind Tre in violation of Articles 5 and 6 GDPR? Was the information provided by

Protection, pursuant to Article 83(3) and Article 83(4)(a) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679, in conjunction with Article 103 of the Personal Data

for the alleged infractions of the article 5.1 d) and 17 of the RGPD, infractions typified in article 83.5 a) and 83.5 b) of the RGPD and classified as very

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 as secretary to Mrs. E.E.E., indicated

states that the party concerned violated Article 83(4)(a) GDPR in conjunction with [Article 32(1) GDPR. Article 32 (1) GDPRby failing, at least with gross

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On October 13, 2022, DIGI requests the

criteria stated in Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in accordance with Article 83(2) GDPR and Article 76 LOPDGDD the following

with NIF A85850394, for the presumed infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD typified in Article 83.5 a) of the aforementioned RGPD". opting for a penalty

c) and e) GDPR. Lastly, they carried out a dissemination of sensitive data - i.e. disabilities of the students - of vulnerable subjects (i.e. minors)

particular case; SAW Both the infringement of article 9 and article 6 of the RGPD, are found provided for in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD where it is established

procedure to the claimed, by the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD. SEVENTH: Once the aforementioned commencement

processing special categories of data, cf. Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d), Article 24 and Article 35, cf. Article 5. In May 2019, a municipality reported

punishable under Article 83(4)(a) GDPR. Assessing the circumstances that modify the responsibility contemplated in Article 83(2) GDPR, in this case, the

the LPACAP, 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

claimed party, for the alleged infraction of the Article 58.2 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 e) of the RGPD. Said agreement was notified through

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

Page 4 4/5IIIThis infraction is typified in article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers as such: “ nofacilitate access in breach of article 58, paragraph

suspension. " 5 Pursuant to Article 83 (2), (5) and (7) of the General Data Protection Regulation: “[...] administrative fines in accordance with Article 58 (2)

GPRD), an offense under Article 83(5)(a) of the GPRD and described as very serious in article 72.1. a) of Organic Law 3/2018 of 5 December, on Protection

alleged infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4 of the RGPD Once

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

Articles 5, paragraph 1, letter a), c) and e), 12, 13, 15 of the Regulation, the outcome of the proceedings referred to in Article 166, paragraph 5 conducted

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 art. 6(3)(b) GDPR, and concluded

each; ii. 0a misdemeanour, p. e p. by Article 5(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 5(1)(e) a) Article 83.0.5, both of the GDPR, will be sanctioned with a fine

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

to the present case for infringement of Article 24 and/or Article 32 of the GDPR (Article 83(2)(e) of the GDPR). The company cooperated with the SDPI during

cannot be squared with the evidence.e" 5.5.5 Further: 5.5.5.1 At §§18-23, Ticketmaster submitted that it had met its GDPR obligations by establishing "adequate

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

of Article 12(1) GDPR. The AP outlined that, in the event of an infringement of Article 12(1) of the GDPR, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(5)

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

the offence referred to in Article 83 (5) (e) of the GDPR, which will be sanctioned in accordance with Article 58 (2) GDPR. oepd LEGAL BASIS I By virtue

accordance with Article 32 paragraph 1 letter a DSGVO. The unsecured passwords are personal data, since these passwords, the associated user names and e-mail addresses

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1(f) of the GDPR, as defined in Article 83.5(a) of the GDPR. FOURTH: Having been notified of the above-mentioned

sanctioning procedure, under Article 83(5)(a) of the GDPR, against AAA on 21 December 2022, due to a infringement of Article 6. AAA was the father of the

subsequent violations of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and of the principle of accountability as foreseen in Article 5(2) GDPR read in conjunction

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

i) and 83 of the RGPD and Article 166 of the Code, has the corrective power to "impose a pecuniary administrative sanction pursuant to Article 83, in addition

of €10,000.00. claimed, for the violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, an action that can be subsumed under the sanctioning type of article 83.5 of the RGPD. IV Article 58 of the RGPD

the Council in the context of Article 31, Article 58(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 83(1) to (3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679 of the

above-mentioned art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) of Regulation 2016/679, while for violation of Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. a) Regulation 2016/679 - pursuant to art. 83 sec. 5 lit. (a)

parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD). The balance of the circumstances contemplated in article 83.2 of the

show that the basics the principles of Article 5 of the Data Protection Regulation are complied with (Article 5 (2)). The person responsible for personal

same Article 83. 181. Article 83 of the RGPD provides : 1. Each control authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this Article for

of the article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, infringement typified in its article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned regulation. IV. Article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, considers

with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 14 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD. In that

administrative sanction provided for in Article 83, paragraph 5, of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation