Search results

monitoring purposes need to be specified for every surveillance camera in use and "[v]ideo surveillance based on the mere purpose of 'safety' or 'for your safety'

respects the GDPR as well as the specific conditions laid down in Chapter V. The same conditions must also be met for onward transfers to further third

Commisson v Germany; Case C-614/10, Commission v Austria; and Case C-288/12, Commission v Hungary. See CJEU, case C-518/07 - Commission v Germany, paragraph

this Regulation and of measures taken in accordance with Article 58(2); and (v) fulfil any other tasks related to the protection of personal data. 2. Each

matter is largely clarified by the CJEU now. Case Law: In C-487/21 - F.F. v DSB, the CJEU clarified that the right to a copy under Article 15(3) GDPR entails

14 TPG (German Organ Transplant Law). § 284 and § 285 SGB V (German Social Insurance Code V)

(rights of the data subject), CHAPTER IV (controller and processor), CHAPTER V (transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations)

3rd Edition). CJEU in case C-288/2012 - Commission v Hungary, paragraphs 53 to 59. Case C‑424/15, Garai v Administración del Estado, paragraph 52. Polenz

carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household

“European Court of  Human Rights, 14  September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. The Netherlands, EC:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, margin number 83: “Further

available'. This provision, together with the others contained in Chapter V, thus contributes to the transfer of personal data in a globalised economy

protection that should be achieved is promoted and delimited in Chapter V of the GDPR. Chapter V of the GDPR creates a three-tiered structure for legal bases for

shall examine, in particular, the application and functioning of: (a) Chapter V on the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations

Furthermore, this choice must be seen in light of Case C-614/10, Commission v Austria. Here, the ECJ established that a supervisory authority's staff could

Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, 2009, §§ 114-115; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], 2011, §§ 301-304 and 319; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], 2012

University Press 2020). CJEU, Commission v Germany, C-518/07, margin number 23 (available here); CJEU, Commission v. Austria, C-614/10, margin number 37 (available

is particularly sensitive, privacy should trump transparency. In C-439/19 B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima the CJEU held that ‘in light [of]… the sensitivity

Articles 6 to 9 GDPR, or the lack of a valid transfer mechanism under Chapter V GDPR. It further includes violations of delegated acts and implementing acts

ensure democratic control and transparency. Case law: The CJEU in Commission v Germany, considered tha the obligation of independent SAs to regularly submit

other mechanism of Chapter V can be applied. As explained by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), the mechanism in Chapter V acts as a layer structure

CJEU - C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law:

of Article 3 and the provisions on international transfers as per Chapter V of the GDPR The GDPR does not provide a definition of 'establishment' for the

exercise of their powers. The CJEU clarified, in Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission, that information will be considered confidential if it fulfils

processors (Article 28); safeguards surrounding international transfer(s) (Chapter V); prior consultation (Article 36). risks to the rights and freedoms of data

Passenger Name Records. The transfers based on other provisions of Chapter V, such as adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses and binding corporate

of dispute resolution. This reading is supported by the Court in Commission v Germany, which interpreted the phrase “complete independence” in the context

number 2 (C. H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition) citing CJEU, C-193/18, Google LLC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 13 June 2019 (available here), and CJEU, C-142/18

first take place before the Small Claims Court. The EWCA in Open Rights Group v Secretary of State for the Home Department helpfully summarised the approach

transfers to third countries or international organisations under Chapter V of the GDPR (Article 44 et seq. GDPR). The GDPR only requires that a SA is

exchange of information and best practices between the supervisory authorities; (v) promote common training programmes and facilitate personnel exchanges between

Article 30, margin number 19 (C.H.Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). CJEU, C-154/21, RW v Österreichische Post, 12 January 2023, among the others, margin number 24 (available

ensuring compliance with data transfer requirements for third countries (Chapter V), and organizing communication with data subjects and supervisory authorities

transfers to non-EU/EEA countries ('third countries') can be found in Chapter V of the GDPR. Example: When a Czech controller is storing personal data with

identified; (iv) how serious the consequences of the breach are to individuals; (v) whether individuals affected are particularly vulnerable; (vi) whether the

The CJEU issued its first judgment on non-material damages under Article 82 GDPR. It was ruled that there is no threshold for non-material damages for

international organisations, taking into account the provisions of Chapter V of the GDPR. If the instructions by the controller "do not allow for transfers

CJEU - C-487/21 F.F. v DSB Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 15(3) GDPR Decided: 04.05.2023 Parties: DSB (Austria) Case Number/Name:

CJEU - C-154/21 RW v Österreichische Post Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 12(5)(b) GDPR Article 15(1)(c)

application of Chapter V of the GDPR First, it must be verified whether the first respondent is subject to the obligations standardized in Chapter V of the Regulation

Cases C‑92/09 and C‑93/09, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, paragraph 86, 9. November 2010 (available here). EDPB, ‘Guidelines

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. Planet49 GmbH Case Number/Name: C-673/17 Planet49 European Case Law Identifier:

CJEU - C-251/21 Meta Platforms and Others v Bundeskartellamt Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 6 GDPR Article 9 GDPR Article

20 June 2007, p. 4 (available here). European Court of Human Rights. Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95. For example as a consumer, patient, employee

used to achieve this are identified and summarised in R (Open Rights Group) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 800, [2021] 1 WLR

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

was first outlined in Thorburn v Sunderland City Council in 2002 and reiterated in HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, R (ex parte) v The Secretary of State for Transport

to ensure that additional measures were put in place to comply with Chapter V of the GDPR, such as encryption of the personal data. The Municipality claimed

Austrian DPA alleging that the controller breached the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

Directive committed up to the date when that Directive was repealed (§104). V. In the fifth place, the Court recognized the direct effect of the provision

provisions of the GDPR shall not be interpreted in broader terms the Titles V and VI of the EU Treaty/Treaty of Lisbon and, in any case, border than the

Irving v Post Office [1987] IRLR 289, Weddall v Barchester Healthcare [2012] EWCA Civ 25, Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica [2004] UKPC 47, Brown v Robinson

The CJEU ruled that consent is not valid if a contract contains a clause stating that the data subject has been informed of, and has consented to, the

CJEU - C-667/21 ZQ v Medical Service of Health Insurance North Rhine Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(f) GDPR Article

Chamber),composed of D. Spielmann, President, V. Valančius (Rapporteur) and R. Mastroianni, Judges,Registrar: V. Di Bucci,having regard to the written part

Cecilie Tandberg Hallan - for trial) against the State v / Personvernnemnda (Government Advocate v / lawyer Stein-Erik Jahr Dahl). Author Judges Erik Thyness

data to the US in violation of Chapter V of the GDPR. At the same time, the supervisory authority ruled that Chapter V of the GDPR sets out obligation only

Judgment In the legal dispute of Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e. V., represented by its board Wolfgang Schuldzinski, Mintropstraße 27, 40215 Düsseldorf

Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González 7 CJEU, 24 September 2019, C-507/17, Google LLC v Commission nationale

Arr. R.v.St. 1992, z.p.; Not. 1995, IV, 21; BREED. 1992, z.p. 15Compare with: Council of State., 3 June 1993, n.v. Syndicaat Machiensteen en n.v. Swenden

header and url-encoded parameters: https://www.google-analytics.com/collect? v=1&_v=j83&a=1005550321&t=pageview&_s=1&dl=https%3A%2F %2Fwww.rae.es%2F&ul=en-

W. v. Germany, Judgment of 28 June 2018, nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10, §§ 104, 105; on the significance of identifying reporting, see also ECHR, F. v. Germany

its veracity; (v) the content, form and consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application

information]; on § 10 HMG HessVGH, Urt. v. 30.10.1990 - 11 UE 3005/89 - ESVGH 41, 105; VG Frankfurt a.M., Urt. v. 29.07.2011 - 5 K 156/11.F - juris; to

exemption despite the ECHR's Decision of the case Papageorgiou and Others v. Greece that convicted the latter for the violation of the right to education

personal data on their website. This position is repeated in G.C. & Others v. CNIL (section 52). Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

explain that the procedure regulated in § 21 DSAG LSA is not transparent i . S.v. Art. 53 Para. 2 GDPR is. The procedure itself is in this respect simple law

until Helsingør Municipality could demonstrate that the rules in Chapter V of the Data Protection Regulation had been observed. The ban and suspension

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) 02/08/2000, Bergens Tidende and others v. Norway, section 51. The Data Inspectorate apparently distinguishes between

SC C&V Water Control SA for failing to provide information to the DPA during the investigation. The Romanian DPA required information from C C&V Water

The Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) conducted an investigation into ING Bank N.V. Amsterdam – Bucharest Branch, following a personal data breach notification, and

The Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) imposed a €3000 fine on ING Bank N.V. Amsterdam – Bucharest Branch for unlawfully processing the personal data of a natural

for an 'average reader'. This is an appeal of the earlier case T‑384/20 - OC v European Commission. The claimant (OC) appealed the general court’s decision

EWHC - Sanso Rondon v LexisNexis Risk Solutions UK Ltd (2021) EWHC 1427 (QB) (28 May 2021) QB-2020-002788 Court: EWHC (UK) Jurisdiction: United Kingdom

reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding. In HMRC -v- Fairford Group (in liquidation) and Fairford Partnership Group (in liquidation)

CJEU - Case C-496/17 Deutsche Post AG v. Hauptzollamt Köln Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 4(2) GDPR Article 5(1)(b) GDPR

CJEU - T-709/21 WhatsApp Ireland v European Data Protection Board Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 4(1) GDPR Article 12(1)

The Advocate General Campos Sanchez-Bordona considered that the restriction imposed by Hungary on the financing of civil organisation from abroad is not

The Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe issued his opinion on the Bundesgerichtshof’s (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) request for a preliminary ruling

reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding. In HMRC -v- Fairford Group (in liquidation) and Fairford Partnership Group (in liquidation)

The English High Court held that Lloyds Bank Plc complied with Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA 1998") by providing adequate responses

The United Kingdom High Court held that the Metropolitan Police unlawfully retained the personal data of a minor in breach of the ECHR and the UK Data

CJEU - C‑37/20 and C‑601/20, WM and Sovim SA v Luxembourg Business Registers Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1) GDPR Article

against unauthorised leaks.” The High Court was referred to Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc for guidelines on the application of ‘ensures

the meaning of 'instigate' in light of the judgment in Microsoft Corporation v McDonald and held that the FTT was right to find that Eldon's involvement with

The territorial scope of the right to be forgotten in the context of search engine operators is limited to the versions of the search engines corresponding

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales found the Immigration Exception in the DPA 2018, which excludes the application of certain GDPR rights and principles

JudgmentLEWIS Stadler v Currys Group Limited 13. The approach to strike out applications under the first limb was summarised in Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers

CJEU - Case C‑264/19 Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC and Google Inc. Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 8(2)(a)

C-46/23 Budapest Főváros IV. Kerület Újpest Önkormányzat Polgármesteri Hivatala v. Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság Court: CJEU Jurisdiction:

relation to matters proceeding in open court: Khuja v Times Newspapers Limited [2017] UKSC 49 and HMRC v Banerjee [2009] EMLR 24.
 
 
 7 The Claimant's

judgment is delivered: defendant: V. V., V. to the defender: T. R., V. prosecutor: G. V., U. department ..., Department ... V. letterbox-here

protection working group in accordance with Article 29 on "Google Spain and Inc v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González”

(on the irrefutability of a conclusion in this area, see last BGH, judgment v. v. 2.7.2019 - VI ZR 494/17, NJW 2019, 453; see also Senate, judgment of 7.6

TransaviaAirlinesC.V.has made agreements with sister companyTransaviaFranceS.A.S if TransaviaFranceS.A.SusesthesystemsofTransaviaAirlinesC.V.througha ServiceLevelAgreement

personal data. v. The Internet user makes a choice in the user interface. vi. The CMP generates the TC String and places a euconsent-v2 cookie on the user's

original. Please refer to the Slovenian original for more details. VSL Decision V Kp 9267/2022JedroThe Court of Appeal notes that the court of first instance

distinguished Dunn v Durham County Council [2003] 1 WLR 2305, Lin & Anor v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 2484 and Kololo v Metropolitan

see Warby J in Sube v NGN [2020] EWHC 1125 (QB), [2020] EMLR 25 at H8 (see also, Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin) and Hayden v Dickinson [2020] EWHC

K. v. France paragraph 42 and Brunet v. France paragraph 37. (67) Furthermore, the Court accentuates the gravity of the offence. In S. and Marper v. the

establish his position in as an interlocutor within the organization. " 6 WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p. 16 __________________

law, in particular the data protection and state hospital law (DSG M-V, LKHG M-V). He also referred to an article he wrote about the GDPR in the magazine

juris marg. 16; SächsOVG, B.v. 10.1.2020 - 6 B 297/19 - juris marg. 3; OVG NW, B.v. 10.9.2019 - 8 B 774/19 - juris marg. 5; B.v. 15.5.2018 - 8 A 740/18 -

NdsOVG, B.v. 16.1.2020 - 2 ME 707/19 - juris marginal 14; OVG NW, B.v. 16.1.2020 - 15 B 814/19 - juris marginal 31 et seq.; left open by OVG RP, B.v. 15.1

Human Rights Eerikäinen et al. v. Finland (10.2.2009, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0210JUD000351402), judgment Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway (16.4.2009, ECLI:CE:E

ev37/1M1j5uuFDuLTYiZJJDPBag/bda8d591447971b3df2bccf5aa4e0916/Customer_DPA_v.3_1_-_en_1_Oct_2020.pdf https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2021/cen

1125 (1125 Bakery Andros Theodorou Ltd v. Republic of Cyprus (2009) 3 A.A.D. 577) »In the Bakery A. Theodorou Ltd v. Democracy (2009 ) 3 Α.Α.Δ. 577, a report

technical independence of the Defendant and as such must be declared null; v. The Defendant cannot be punished twice for committing the same act; saw. The

office he is electively domiciled in XXX - applicant - against ING BANK N.V., General Representative for Italy, (tax code VAT number (Omissis)), in the

of Chapter V of the EU GDPR. It followed, that the EDPS held that for such potential and unplanned transfers, a transfer tool under Chapter V is not required

of their medical record, As to the last question, already in C-487/21 F.F. v DSB the CJEU decided that the right to a copy under Article 15(3) GDPR entails

security bankruptcy notification letter sent by FUNDACION SINDROME 5P MENOS DE C.V. in which they inform the AEPD that the previous directors of the Vice-Presidency

The Spanish DPA fined the airline Vueling €18,000 for relying on pre-checked consent boxes that enabled non-essential cookies and for continuing to use

public and usually free of charge (M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, 28.6. 2018, para 90 and Times Newspapers Ltd v United Kingdom (Nos 1 and 2), 10 March 2009, para

requirements for a body for monitoring compliance with rules of conduct (ÜStAkk-V), Federal Law Gazette II No. 264/2019; Section 78 of the General Administrative

the case of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof im Urt. v. 20.02.2018 - VI ZR 30/17, GRUR 2018, 636. The business policy of the defendant

C o l q u in to, s e s to e s e ttim o m e z z o the v v o c a tu ra ulteriorm ente infers: (v) the violation of art. 8 of the card fundamental of the

to the deontological and professional errors committed by V, a complaint is also pending. V, a complaint is also pending with "the competent authority"

case of any claims by third parties against V. [...] related to the functionality of the SYSTEM [...], releases V. from this liability to the extent permitted

The French DPA held that a French online respondent violated Chapter V of the GDPR by using Google Analytics, which led to unlawful transfers of personal

20 2 2020, the statutory name of SanomaMediaNetherlandsB.V.has changed to DPGMediaMagazinesB.V. DPG's activities have remained unchanged. In the period

cases of Vnukovo Airlines (V.A.) and Others v. v. Vnukovo Airlines (V.A.) et al. Attorney General (2001) A.A.D. 969 and Kyriakides v. Republic (2013) 3 A.A

judgments in Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1973) 2 AllE.R 943 and Banker’s Trust v. Shabira (1980) 1 W.L.R 1274 are covered

Amsterdam : [P] , [V] and [C] (last name unknown). They had the following telephone numbers: [P] : [phone no.1] and [phone no.2] V] : [phone no.3] I would

3(1) of Directive 95/46/EC Decided: 16.12.2008 Parties: Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy, Satamedia Oy, Case Number/Name: C-73/07 Satamedia

59; Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) v. France, no. 12268/03, § 47, 23 July 2009; and MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 143, 18

kakšne namene; posredovanju odgovora NIJZ v zvezi z uporabo njegovega podpisa in e-naslova pri oddaji vloge. IP je v predmetnem dopisu zavezanca seznanil,

the Republic of Croatia, Z., with the participation of the interested person V. H., Z., represented by attorney S. B., to the lawyer in Z., for the right

generated by their use 1 Copland v UK of 03-7-2007, Amman v. Switzerland of l 6-02-2000, Kopp v. Switzerland of 25-3- 1 998, Halford v. The United Kingdom of 25-6-1

its veracity; (v) the content, form and consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application

its veracity; (v) the content, form and consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application

its veracity; (v) the content, form and consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application

Article 8 protects, see M.L. and W.W. v. Germany (case numbers 60798/10 and 65599/10) judgment of 28 June 2018 and Hurbain v. Belgium, (case number 57292/16)

Directive 2004/18 / EC". 22 See, e.g., H.v.J., C-373/00, Truley, EU: C: 2003: 110, § 43; C-214/00, Commission v. Spain, May 15, 2003, EU: C: 2003: 276,

data to a third country. In particular, none of the legal bases of Chapter V GDPR could be used for the transfer. As a matter of fact, Google – the data

(hereinafter: Rules of Conduct) of the association "Die Wirtschaftsauskunfteien e.V." are also not capable of legitimising the defendant's interest in the processing

against the Community texts" - CJEU Costa v ENEL, Case No 6/64; Commission v Italian Republic, Case No 39/72; Variola v Italian Financial Administration, Case

according to the provisions of the RGPD. In this context, we remind that art. V alin. (2) of Law no. 129/2018 stipulates that “All references to Law no. 677/2001

means that an amount greater than €250 had to be debited from the credit. (v) On June 27, 2017, NDA Incasso, to whom Hoist had handed over the claim and

Article 6(1) GDPR. The Bulgarian DPA examined a complaint lodged by a citizen, V.V., against a company providing utility services (‘the company’) and a private

that it would address the more general issue of the application of Chapter V of the GDPR to video-conferencing services of companies belonging to a group

external recruitment as an "attempt 10WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p. 14 11WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April

appellant, Attorney at law: Mr. J.M. Molkenboer in Tilburg, by ING BANK N.V. , based in Amsterdam, Intimate, Attorney at law: Mr. I.M.C.A. Reinders Folmer

W.S. Soyo t e g e n c e s s the limited liability company ABN Amro Bank N.V. established in Amsterdam accused to be specified: ABN Amro authorised Mr E

relief proceedings should order ING c.s. and Arrow Global Benelux Holdings B.V. (hereinafter referred to as: Arrow) to remove the codes from the CKI within

Appellant, Attorney at law: Mr. K. Both at Vleuten, at the rate of ABN AMRO BANK N.V., established in Amsterdam, Intimate, Attorney at law: M.J.M.T. Keulaerds,

IT WAS ALREADY ATTENDED TO THE REQUEST RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT WITH C.S.V. XXXXXXXXXX…” SIXTH: On February 20, 2023, a proposed resolution was formulated

activities with [name bv] B.V., his activities take place. in the Netherlands also in [place of residence]. In [name bv] B.V., also established in Rotterdam

housing corporations operating in Groningen and Haren and Essent Netwerk B.V. The aim of the covenant is to combat the domestic cultivation of hemp in the

Treaty establishing the European Community, such as those covered by Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union, and in no case is it applicable to

failed to prove an urgent interest. The complainant asked his bank (ING Bank N.V.) to remove his data from the BKR registration (office for credit) under Article

Stuttgart 1893 e.V.", a registered association under German law, into a stock corporation ("VfB Stuttgart 1893 AG"), VfB Stuttgart 1893 e.V. transferred several

person responsible for the processing who has committed the infringement.>>. V In the present case, it is clear from the investigations carried out by that

ECLI:NL:PHR:2023:935 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 [plaintiff] B.V. (hereinafter: '[plaintiff]') in return for PME Investment Services B.V. (hereinafter: 'PME') PME installed a housing

the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment is “Google Spain and Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González 'C-131/12

criminal proceedings concerned, including of V.S., has been gathered. It is explained in the application that V.S. has been formally accused of an offence

of 10 September 2009 - C-97/08 - EuZW 2009, 816, 821 [Akzo Nobel and others v. Commission], para. 54 et seq.; ECJ, Judgment of 14 December 2006 - T-259/02

advertising. However, in a recent judgment C-252/21 Facebook Inc. and Others v Bundeskartellamt by the Court of Justice (hereinafter “Bundeskartellamt Judgment”)

“augmented” cameras, algorithmic processing. Basis for the referral: Article 10, V. of Law No. 2023-380 of May 19, 2023 relating to the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic

2018 (loc.cit., Art. 18 marginal 38; OVG Lüneburg, U.v. 20.6.2019 - 11 LC 121/17 - para 43; VG Stade, B.v. 9.10.2018 - 1 B 1918/18 - para 30). A common feature

43 of the German Rules of the Administrative Courts (Bayerischer VGH, Urt. v. 9.4.2003 - 24 B 02.646 -, juris, paragraph 22, Sodan, in: Sodan/Ziekow, VwGO

displayed on the basis of his first and last name: i. ... ii. … iii. … iv. ...v. ...vi. ... vii. ... Following the examination of the elements of the file

February 21, 2019, re II .: from May 25, 2018, to IV .: from May 25, 2018, to V .: from May 25, 2018 and to VI .: from May 25th, 2018, I. the unlawful processing

DPD, in accordance with Articles 13.1.b) and 14.1.b) of the GDPR. 6WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p.15 ___________________

Mr. J. van Overdam in Utrecht, by Trigion Brand- en Beveiligingstechniek B.V., established in Woerden, the Netherlands, defendant, hereafter referred to

its website: https://www.ip-rs.si/novice/odgovorno-ravnanje-vseh-je-kljucno-v-casu-virusne-krize-1170/ The decision below is a machine translation of the

in this paragraph, according to the circumstances of each case particular; V By virtue of the provisions of Article 58.2 of the RGPD, the Spanish Agency

Chapter III Chapterrights concerned), Annex IV Chapter V (the controller and the processor), Chapter V (personal datato third countries or international organizations)

outcome. Personvernnemda refers to Google Spain (131/12) and G.C. & Others v CNIL (136/17), as well as earlier decisions by PVN: PVN-2019-02, PVN-2020-08

practitioners, but the statement of reply was submitted on behalf of Z comm.v. 16. On September 28, 2022, the parties will be notified that the hearing will

Bank Melli Iran v Council, T-35/10 and T-7/11, EU:T:2013:397, marginal 21 et seq. 70; Judgment of 29 April 2015, Bank of Industry and Mine v Council, T-10/13

mentioned in this section, depending on the circumstances of each particular case. V Article 73 of the LOPDDG indicates: "Violations considered serious "Based on

"additional measures" within the meaning of the ECJ decision "Schrems II" (ECJ, Rt. v. 16. 7.2020, C-311/18) are necessary to make the transfer compliant with data

mentioned in this section, according to the circumstances of each caseparticular;V Article 73 of the LOPDDG states: ”Infractions considered serious“In accordance

Altice Europe NV v Commission (Case T-425/18, judgment delivered on 22 September 2021, ECLI:EU:T:2021:607), paragraph 362; Romana Tabacchi v Commission (Case

Spain and Google) and in judgment C-136/17 of September 24, 2019 ( GC & Others v CNIL ). This is also in line with established administrative practice from

of the European Court In Joined Cases C-141/12 and C-372/12 YS and M and S v Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum (hereinafter the Immigration

controller unlawfully transferred personal data to the U.S. in violation of Chapter V GDPR. On 20 August 2020 the data subject, represented by noyb, filed a complaint

the SAR on 15/12/2020, upon notification of the complaint by the Cyprus SA. v. As a result of reimbursement provided to the complainant, the controller continued

authorization must be less than three years old; is in accordance with Title V of this deliberation concerning the terms of data hosting and the absence of

Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA "Rīgas satiksme', recital 28. See also CJEU, 11 December 2019, C-708/18, TK v. Asociaţia de Proprietari

remedy against the decision contained in clauses IV and V and the order contained in clauses IV and V , but it may be challenged in an administrative lawsuit

19, 2016, Dragojević v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, January 15, 2015, Peck v. United Kingdom, No. 44647/98, January 28, 2003, Leander v. Sweden, no. 9248/81

2013, Versalis Spa v Commission, C-511/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:386, says: “ 94. Regarding, firstly, the reference to the Showa Denko v Commission judgment

suitable basis for a claim. 27a) 28 A right to information from Section 666 i. V. m. Section 675, Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is out of the question

regard to requirements under directive law (ECJ, judgment of 19.10.2016, Breyer v. Germany, C-582/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:779, para. 62 f.). This must then apply

5 June 2018, Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein v Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH (C-210/16), in the light of the

(Rec. no. 13710/88), spec. par. 29; Copland v. UK, 03.04.2007 (Rec. no. 62617/00), spec. par. 41; Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], 5.9.2017 (Rec. n. 61496/08)

to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case of Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro. This case also concerned CCTV surveillance in the workplace. Here

2013, Versalis Spa v Commission, C-511/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:386, says: “ 94. Regarding, firstly, the reference to the Showa Denko v Commission judgment

person, (iv) there is no evidence of the income level of the defendant and (v) the defendant has been already warned by the police of the unlawfulness of

the fulfillment of a mission carried out for reasons of interest public". V Article 17 of the GDPR, which regulates the right to delete personal data,

In addition, the Applicant considers that the registration infringes Act V of 2013 on the Applicant Civil Code (hereinafter: Under Section 2: 48(1) of

Achmea Bank N.V., established at [place of business] , Lawyers: J.M. Brölmann and S.C.M.J.V.L. Kloppers in Utrecht, and 2 ABN AMRO Bank N.V, established

the principles of personal data transfer outside the EU mandated in Chapter V GDPR. Furthermore, on the data subject’s right to be informed, the controller

n (v. 2.0.), beschikbaar via: https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_201904_dataprotection_by_design_and_by_default_v2.0_

BRUSSELS, JosephStevensstraat7, fifth applicant, 6. LIGUE DES DROITS HUMAINS V.Z.W. c/o, with registered office at 1000 Brussels, Kogelstraat 22, but choosing

but this cannot be stated from the examined data management information. (v) Provide adequate information on the data subject's rights of appeal under

27 November 2019, nor during subsequent discussions with the CNPD. 4 WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p.15 ___________________

charities" (own emphasis). 10 ArrestTK v Asociatia de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA, rn. 47. 11 With analogous reasoning in TK v Asociatia de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA

recommendations made by the Ombudsman for the specific penitentiary area”. V It is considered that the facts exposed, that is, capturing the images with

articles 13 and 14 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and 12 of this organic law. V The art. 83.5 GDPR provides the following: “Violation of the provisions following

article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, allow a penalty of €2,000 (TWO THOUSAND EURO). V GDPR Article 32 Article 32 "Security of treatment" of the GDPR establishes:

attributable to the party claimed, for violation of the content of article 13 RGPD. V The art. 83.5 GDPR provides the following: “Violation of the following provisions:

and 1,b. to be removed from the company's lists by selecting the number 2. v) For the above complaint, the following information is provided in particular:

Normally, this would support erasure in this situation, cf. G.C. & Others v. CNIL, section 67 (C-136/17 24 September 2019). However, on the other hand

on Healthcare Reform Decided: 01.10.2015 Parties: Smaranda Bara and Others v. Președintele Casei Naționale de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa Naţională de Asigurări

public funds. The contract to execute this task was given to City Traffic B.V., now Bureau RMC. Bureau RMC then contracted an unnamed party to do the installation

T0708888500-F0708888501 authoritypersonal data.nl Confidential / Registered CP & AB.V. Attn the management P.O. Box 514 5600AMindhoven Date Our reference March 24

incidents, implementation dates and controls made to verify its effectiveness and (v) any other that it considers relevant. The notification is automatically rejected

whether the active substance, the name of the medicinal product, the diagnosis v or ATC name. All refer to a state of health. Also examples of ATC names referred

necessity and concludes that the adjective 15 CJEU, December 16, 2008, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-524/06, para. 52. 16 Opinion of Advocate General

arising from article 6.1.e) of the GDPR, authorized by article 46.3 of the LOU. v. The corresponding weighting judgment has been carried out and proportionality

Management Company Claims from Loans and Credits has the status of data controller, v the article 4 para. 7 GDPR, as the last admission follows directly from the

into the fulfillment of the obligations required in the matter of LOPDGDD". V In accordance with the allegations and evidence provided in these proceedings

alien to Union law (see ECJ Cases C407/14 , Maria Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA [ECLI:EU:C:2015:831]; also Case C99/15 , Liffers/Producciones

website. 7 See CJEU decision of 16-01-2019 in case C-496/2017 Deutsche Post AG v. Hauptzollamt Köln, sc. 57. 8 See SC decision 517/2018, sc. 12. 9 See L. Mitrou

stakeholder complaint. (iv) NAIH-6956-1/2021. registered stakeholder complaint. (v) NAIH-7276-1/2022. registered stakeholder complaint. (5) Customer 1 NAIH-172-1/2021

BeckRS 2020, 41220, para. 42, which leaves the question open; VG Berlin ruling v. May 24, 2011 - Az. 1 K 133/10, BeckRS 2011, 52814; Bay. State Office for Data

pdf 2 Above, para. 19 and footnote 9. 3 CJEU, C- 496/17, Deutsche Post AG v. Hauptzollamt Köln1, 16 January 2019, §§ 57.7 illegal (subject to the provisions

[applicant], Attorney at law: Mr. M. de Boorder in The Hague, by ING Bank N.V, located in Amsterdam, defendant on appeal, hereinafter referred to as: ING

out activities included in the scope of application of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; c) carried out by a natural person in the exercise of activities

Consumer Finance B.V. (hereinafter: Qander) with a registration of 1 October 2017 as the credit end date. Santander Consumer Finance B.V. (hereinafter: Santander)

THE ABOVE MENTIONED, THE GARANTE Pursuant to Article 57, paragraph 1, letter v) of the Regulation, takes note of the postponement of the deadline for joining

effective legal remedies. The United States represent a third country iSd. Chapter V GDPR. In the absence of a corresponding adequacy decision by the European Commission

awarding authority or concern the bid of a competitor (OLG Karlsruhe, order v. 21.05.2021, 15 Verg 4/21, juris, marginal no. 28; OLG Düsseldorf, order of

informed that the latest version of the StopCovid France application (version v.1.1.*) is based on captcha technology developed by the company ORANGE, which

April 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, paragraph 91, C- 337/15 P, European Ombudsman v. Staelen, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, paragraph 91). 29. In the light of the above

Authority (AP) has decided to impose an administrative fine on Booking.com B.V. (Booking) in the amount of penalty of € 475,000. The AP is of the opinion

where the spelling appears. In our case, the question of the use of capital V in the prefix "van" represents incorrect personal information. Similar questions

necessary to guarantee the protection of personal data of your customers. v Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: "Each control authority will

ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 – MK v K GmbH See holding for questions referred. Questions referred Is a national

CJEU - C-460/20 TU, RE v Google Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 11 CFREU Article 7 CFREU Article 8 CFREU Article 16 CFREU

The High Court set out its standard of review for the decisions of other state decision-making bodies. The applicant (Deely) sought to invoke the Freedom

CJEU - C-446/21 Schrems v Facebook Ireland (2021) Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(c) GDPR Article 6(1)(a) GDPR Article

CJEU - Case C-291/12 Michael Schwarz v Stadt Bochum Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 1(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004

upon by academics both here https://europeanlawblog.eu/2022/10/17/t-384-20-oc-v-european-commission-the-general-court-falls-out-of-line-on-personal-data/ and

CJEU - C-557/07 LSG v. Tele2 Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29 Decided: 19.02.2009 Parties: LSG-Gesellschaft

CJEU - C-222/20 OC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 21 TFEU Article 67(2) TFEU Article 7 CFREU

CJEU - Case T-557/20 SRB v. EDPS Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 3(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 Decided: 26.04.2023 Parties:

CJEU - C-543/09 Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 12 Directive 2002/58/EC

CJEU - T‑451/20 Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, v. European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law:

CJEU - C-215/20 JV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 9 GDPR Article 13 GDPR Article 24 CFREU

CJEU - C-141/12 and C-372/12 YS v. Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Charter Directive

2016/680 Decided: Parties: VS Inspektor v Inspektorata kam Visshia sadeben savet Case Number/Name: C-180/21 Inspektor v Inspektorata kam Visshia sadeben savet

CJEU - C‑755/21 P Kočner v Europol Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 82(4) GDPR Article 82(5) GDPR Article 340 TFEU Article

National Health Serviceon clinical episodes associated with a patientof(cf. Annex V);In point 4 of authorizations No. 5795/2012 and 5796/2012, entitled Measures

criteria indicated in article 80 of the LGT and that are indicated in the FD V of this resolution. Consequently, the allegations to the Motion for Resolution

including the claimant, as they are also included in such electoral census list, (v) the communication area claimed is less than other publication media used by