Search results

into account and issued a fine of €2,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR as classified under Article 83(5) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share

File E / 00519/2019, about a letter dated 12/12/2018, the complainant being B.B.B. . (pa- dre of the representative of the claimant in this proceeding, as

violation of Article 15 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, as well as for the alleged infringement of Article 17 of the GDPR, typified in

"accept 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

transmissions covered by point b. of her applications, "by analogy pursuant to Article 25.1 in conjunction with Article 22.4 of the first case DSG". Arguments

section of Investigated Entities. It also provides other data:Name: B.B.B.Surname: B.B.B.Address: ***ADDRESS.1Contact e-mail: ***EMAIL.1Contact telephone:

Pursuant to Article 83 GDPR in conjunction with Article 4 No. 7 and 8 GDPR, fines for violations of the GDPR pursuant to Article 83(4) to (6) GDPR are not

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

ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376, paragraph 4.2.2, of 28 May 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:793, paragraph 2.4.5, and of 19 July 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, paragraph 2.13.2). 33. The Section

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

the number of data subjects (Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the As for the number of data subjects (Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Panel notes that these

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

regarding Article 6(1) GDPR and consent requirements regulated previously to GDPR. The fact that the infringements related to Article 25 GDPR did not include

of APERCIBIMENTO to B.B.B., for the alleged violation of article 5.1.a) of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5.a) and 58.2.b) and d) of the aforementioned

access and deletion enshrined in Articles 15 to 22 of the RGPD, Articles 13 to 18 LOPDGDD and Article 17 GDPR respectively. The conflict of law arose in this

controller) under Article 33 GDPR. On the 7 December 2023, the Norwegian DPA imposed a reprimand on the municipality under Article 58(2)(b) GDPR, for processing

protection regulation's article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letter a, Article 24, cf. Article 28, subsection 1, Article 35, subsection 1, as

installing a video surveillance camera system violating Article 22 LOPDGDD and Article 12 GDPR? The Spanish DPA found that the defendant could install

conjunction with Article 62 (1) 4 DSG and for the period prior to 25 May 2018 against Article 52 Paragraph 2 no. 7 in conjunction with § 50b par. 2 DSG 2000.

interests of employees (Article 83 (2) (a) and (k) of the General Data Protection Regulation). The Authority did not consider Article 83 (2) (b), (c), (d), (f)

accordance with Article 60 of the AVG. No objections to this were submitted. 2. Legal Framework 2.1 Scope of the AVG Pursuant to Article 2(1) of the AVG

information correctly published at the time. The DPA noted that under Article 17(3)(b) GDPR, personal data shall not be erased if their processing is necessary

defendant and the processing of personal data (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD) The activity of the defendant

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

[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

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE Don B.B.B., with NIF *** NIF.1, for a violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of

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

significant (article 83.2 b). - The duration of the illegitimate treatment of the data of the affected party carried out by the claimed (article 83.2 d). That

company result in a breach of Article 37 GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) found that Conseguridad SL had violated Article 37(1)(b) GDPR by not having designated

information provided was in breach of Article 13 GDPR. Therefore, the authority warned the controller (Article 83(5) GDPR) and requested to complete the notice

regarding Article 6(1) GDPR and consent requirements regulated previously to GDPR. The fact that the infringements related to Article 25 GDPR did not include

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

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

to B.B.B.. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 10/11 THIRD: ORDER to B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, which by virtue of article 58.2

fairness and transparency (Article 5.1 a) GDPR), purpose limitation (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and minimum data processing (Article 5.1 c) GDPR); 4) the legal basis

Protection Regulation (Article 83 (2) (e) of the General Data Protection Regulation). circumstances within the meaning of Article 2 (2) (b), (f), (g), (h), (i)

( *** POSITION 1) for an infraction of Article 6.1.f) of the GDPR, in accordance with Article 83.5 of the GDPR ”. In the face of it, no allegations have

explicitly required by GDPR. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that the controller breached Article 13(2)(f) GDPR and Article 14(2)(g) GDPR for not disclosing its

claimant 1), Ms. B.B.B. (hereafter claimant 2) and D. C.C.C. (hereinafter claimant 3) dated October 24, 2019, November 13, 2019, and July 22, 2020, respectively

pursuant to Article 6(1)(e) of the GDPR and § 1(2) of the Act of Statistics Denmark and is not obliged to delete it in accordance with the Article 17(3)(b) of

means. 2. The data controller shall facilitate the exercise of his rights under Articles 15 to 22. In the cases referred to in Article 11 paragraph 2, the

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

in Article 12(5) GDPR, Article 15(4) GDPR or Article 16 of the Norwegian Personal Data Act were applicable. The DPA ordered the controller (Article 58(2)(d)

obligor.[Article 83(2)(b) GDPR] - The obligor has not yet been convicted for violating the General Data Protection Regulation.[Article 83(2)(e) GDPR] - The

a violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Generally, a controller

for which they were collected pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 1, b) of the GDPR 22. Article 5.1.b) of the GDPR provides that “Personal data must be: / (…)

analyzes the criteria set 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

rectification under Article 16 GDPR, the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR, and the right to restriction of processing under Article 18 GDPR. The court therefore

street. The DPA was allowed to issue a reprimand, Art. 58(2)(b) GDPR. On the basis of Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR, the DPA was not entitled to order the removal of camera

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

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

authority. Under Article 60 GDPR, the following DPAs were identified as “concerned supervisory authorities” under Article 4(22) GDPR: the Netherlands,

internal compliance and accountability according to Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR. Since the company had totally ignored the its

recording is "processing" of "personal data" within the meaning of Article 4(1) and 4(2) GDPR. Therefore, the data subject has the right to request access to

data Article 9.2.a: Express consent Article 9.2.b: Fulfillment of labor law obligations, etc. Article 9.2.c: Protection of vital interests Article 9.2.d:

Consequently, based on Article 83(5)(a) GDPR, the hospital was fined to pay a fine of EUR 30.000,00 for violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Corrective measures

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

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

to the right of access under Article 15(4) of the GDPR or section 22 of the DDPA can be invoked. It follows from Article 15 (4), that the right to obtain

processing might be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest) and - regarding health data - on Article 9(2)b) GDPR (fulfilling obligations under

3 Sentence 2 GDPR is in accordance and whether there is a conflict of interest within the meaning of. Article 38 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 GDPR applies if

cases G.B.6 (11 days delay in applying the Registry), G.B.8 (6 days), G.B.9 (3 days including a weekend), G.B.10 (4 days including a weekend) and G.B.11 (5

RESOLVES: FIRST: TO IMPOSE on B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a penalty

decision stated: - Pursuant to Article 100, §1, 9 WOG, to order processing in accordance with with Articles 5.1.f, 5.2, 24 and 32 GDPR, in which in particular

specified in Section 2 (2), it may apply the legal consequences specified in the General Data Protection Decree. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) of the General

complaining party. On Consequently, dated January 22, 2021, for the purposes provided in its article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency

(CNIL) on 22 May 2023 regarding the FamEmp survey, as on the basis of Article 44(6) of French law no. 78-17 of 6 January 1978 and Article 36 GDPR, any data

otherwise processed. (b) the data subject withdraws the consent on which the processing was based pursuant to Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) and there is

database. The request for erasure under Article 17(1) GDPR is not applicable, because under Article 17(3)(e) GDPR, the processing was necessary for the defence

data subject (art / e83.2.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

Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter f for this processing. Our legal basis for decisions on reprimands is the Privacy Ordinance, Article 58, No. 2, letter b. ».

required by Article 12 GDPR. The DPA clarified that the right of information and the right of access are distinct. An access request under Article 15 GDPR is not

Thus, it violated Article 15 GDPR. The Datatilsynet issued an injunction and ordered the company, as foreseen under 58(2)(c) GDPR, to carry out a concrete

or by a third party. The court used Article 9(2)(f) GDPR to interpret legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as including the establishment, exercise

violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 14 GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR, and Article

in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1, preamble and under b, of the GDPR. 4.4. Article 6, paragraph 1, opening words, of the GDPR stipulates that processing

Administrator of D. B.B.B., the company has not changed their legal representatives. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD

reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also ordered the controller to bring its

communications under Article 14 GDPR were not legally necessary, as in the present case, Article 23 GDPR restrictions were applicable. Article 23 GDPR establishes

defendant 2. Also here is there therefore an infringement of Article 5 at the time of the facts. 1, a) GDPR, Article 6, Article 12.1 GDPR and Article 14.1 a)

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

The DPA first requested an overview of such processing (equivalent to Article 30 GDPR) for purposes related to the Norwegian Execution of Sentences Act, details

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

implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR).As the processing activity does not relate to a period of time during which the GDPR applied and, according to the

the submitting of all the reasons for which no sanction of the GDPR Article 58 par.2(a), (b), (e) & (i) should be imposed on Cyprus Police. Eventually, the

the basis of Article 6(1)(b): “...there is a risk that the Draft Decision’s failure to establish Meta IE's infringement of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, pursuant

means. 2. The data controller shall facilitate the exercise of his rights under Articles 15 to 22. In the cases referred to in Article 11 paragraph 2, the

violated the provisions of this Regulation" (Article 58.2.b)) and to "impose a fine under Article 83" (Article 58.2.b)).The Commission will be able to impose

verweerder op 22 mei 2020. 5. Op 25 maart 2020 meldt de verweerder aan de Geschillenkamer een kopie van stuk 2 van het dossier (art. 95, §2, 3° WOG) te wensen

personal data", circumstance provided for in article 76.2.b) LOPDGDD in connection with article 83.2.k) GDPR. The business activity of the defendant necessarily

of his personal data would be based 5. 1, a) GDPR, Article 6, Article 12.1 GDPR and Article 14.1 a) GDPR. 67. Moreover, a controller, in this case defendant

□□□ 03026497-0014-0025- □2- □1- � L_JCourt of Appeal Brussels -2022/AR/549 p. 15 2. Ground 2: The Impugned Decision is Properly B. As regards the amount

security (Article 5 § 1 f) GDPR) (and the obligations arising from it – Article 32 GDPR) and the principle of purpose (Article 5 § 1 b) GDPR) which the

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

Authority. II.5.2. Established infringement of Article 5(1)(a) j° Article 6(1)(f) and Article 12(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 17 (1) GDPR. II.5.2.1. Administrative

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

data breach (Article 32 GDPR). Does the plaintiff have a right to compensation according to Article 82(1) GDPR and does Article 82(3) GDPR stipulate a reversal

ORDER B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, in accordance with article 58.2.d) of the GDPR, for a violation of article 13 of the GDPR typified in article 83.5.b) of

reply. The AKI reminded the defendant of its obligation under Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR to inform the data subject in a concise, clear, comprehensible

for the alleged violation of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD in relation to article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD. FIFTH: The Agreement

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

otherwise treated; b) the interested party withdraws the consent on which the treatment is based in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) and this

down in Article 83 (2) GDPR: As aggravating factors: • In this case, negligent action is not intentional, but it is significant (Article 83 (¬2) (b)). • There

infringement of Article 5.1 b) in conjunction with Article 6.4. AVG, on article 5.1 a) in conjunction with article 6.1. AVG and on article 5.1 c) GDPR has been

processing of sensitive personal data under Article 9 GDPR and their lack of valid consent to do so under Article 6(1) GDPR. In 2020, the Norwegian Consumer Council

provided for in Article 15 GDPR and Article 13 LOPDGDD was exercised. Secondly, the DPA noted that a valid legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR is required

established by article 83.2 of the RGPD:As aggravating the following:We are facing unintentional, but significant negligent action(article 83.2 b)Basic personal

15(1)(a)-(h) GDPR. For these reasons, under Article 58 GDPR, the HDPA reprimanded the controller for violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. In addition

violation of Article 13 GDPR and issued a warning to the controller. The AEPD took into account the following aggravating factors (Article 83 (2) GDPR) to determine

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

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

A., and B.B.B., with the aim of capturing and recording the acts of a sexual nature, carried out on the "complainant", described in section "B" of the

violation committed by the Center of Registers listed in Article 83(2) (b), (c), (e), (f) and (h) GDPR, i. e. the absence of intent, the efforts made to restore

and services". B. On the breach of the obligation to inform pursuant to Article 14 of the GDPR 20. According to Article 14 of the GDPR: 1. Where personal

third parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD) The continued nature of the infraction (article 83.2.k of the RGPD

Human Rights. According to settled case-law, it follows from Article 1.2 and Article 59.2 of the Basic Law that there is an obligation to use the Human

cf. Article 4 no. 2. The search engine provider is responsible for the processing of personal data that takes place in that connection, cf. Article 4 no

subject's rights, such as the right to object according to Article 21 GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to ensure that data

are established in Article 58.2 of the RGPD.2(b), the power to impose an administrative fine under Article 83 of the GDPR - Article 58(2)(i), or the power

and with Article 21(5) of the GDPR, and with Article 21(2)(a) of the GDPR. 1(b) of Law No. 2472/1997, in conjunction with Article 13 par. 4 of Law No. 3471/2006

Agency sanction B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, with a fine of €2,000 (two thousand

personal data under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, and ordered the controller to pay the data subject €579.17 in damages under Article 82(1) GDPR. Share your comments

out in Article 6 (1) of the GDPR In addition, there is a circumstance within the meaning of Article 9 (2) of the GDPR. (45) Article 9 (2) of the GDPR does

fundamental principles of the GDPR, notably Article 5(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The DPA found violations of various provisions of the GDPR. It held that the controller

municipality €409,768 (NOK 4,000,000) for breaches of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR after a serious ransomware attack led to highly

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

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

according to Article 9(2)(a) GDPR. On the basis of the information gathered, the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 9 GDPR. As a result

es 2/7 FOUNDATIONS OF LAW FIRST: The Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in

negligent action (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR), and for being data known as basic personal identifiers such as name and address (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The AEPD set

express answer for any rights exercised under Articles 15 to 22 GDPR, by virtue of Article 12 GDPR. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

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

Violation of article 24.2 of the Constitution, presumption of innocence. First, it invokes Articles 24.2, 103.1 and 2 of the EC, and Article 6 of the Convention

relation to Article 83.2(k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, "Sanctions and remedial measures", provides that "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

also be subject to the provisions of Article 6.1(e) DSGVO in conjunction with Article 6.1(b) DSGVO. Article 2, 28.2 no. 2 BayDSG without the consent of the

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

under Article 15 GDPR, in a timely manner as well as in clear and transparent form. Second, the DPA looked at the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR

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

concluded that the controller had breached Article 39(1)(b) GDPR. Regarding the breach of Article 38(2) GDPR, the CNPD found that controller had failed

pre-existing form of Article 11 of Law 3471/2006). However, with the provisions of article 16 par. 1 and 2 of law 3917/2011, par. 1 and 2 of article 11 of law 3471/2006

provisions as stated in Article 95, § 2, as well as that in Article 98 WOG. They are also subject to Article 99 WOG informed of the deadlines for submitting their

ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376, paragraph 4.2.2, of 28 May 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:793, paragraph 2.4.5, and of 19 July 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, paragraph 2.13.2). 40. The Section

conduct object of the This claim is undeniable (article 76.2.b) of the LOPDGDD in relation to the article 83.2.k). - Although it cannot be argued that the

consent of the 10 complainant (article 6.1 a) of the GDPR combined with article 7 of the GDPR), (2) article 6.1 c) of the GDPR in that the publication results

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

this regard [GDPR Article 14 (2) b) ]. (iv) The prospectus did not provide any information regarding data subject rights [GDPR Article 14 (2) c)]. In the

(2016/679) Article 5 (1) (a), Article 12 (1), (2) and (6) , Article 13, Article 15 (1) (h), (3) and (4), Article 58 (2) (c) and (d) subparagraphs Article 34 (1)

accordance with Article 33 GDPR to the Belgian DPA. Nonetheless, there were suspicions that the controller did not comply with Article 32 GDPR. Especially

2019, GDPR Art. 37, para. 1; Döpfler , EU-GDPR and BDSG, 2nd edition 2020, GDPR Art. 37, marginal 1; Paal / Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, 2nd ed. 2018, GDPR Art.

neither to the claimant, nor to Mr. B.B.B. Likewise, a search of all the SMS sent by the system in the file of Mr. B.B.B. and the only phone number that appears

accountability (Article 5 (2) and 24 (1), (2) GDPR), privacy by design (Article 25 (1) GDPR) and as controller towards its data processors (Article 28 GDPR). Consequently

one of the 'other administrative or non-judicial' remedies, which Article 78(2) GDPR refers to. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

infringement of Article 32.1 of the GDPR typified as a serious infringement in Article 73 f) of the LOPDGDD and in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. For its part

6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 2 2/6THIRD: On October 30, 2019, in accordance with article 65.4 ofOrganic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on the

P3002000B, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with article 77.2 of the

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

under Article 15 GDPR to the defendant and requested i.a. information on concrete recipients of their personal data under Article 15(1)(c) GDPR. The defendant

under Article 15 GDPR and demanded free access to the historic bank transaction data. The bank argued that this would be a misuse of Article 15 GDPR and

files, of estate [estate 2] , [estate 1] , [address 1] , [name of house] ( [address 2] at [place B] ) and the pasture at [place B] and the accompanying guidance

specified period - article 58. 2 d) -. According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the measure provided for in article 58.2 d) of the aforementioned

Services (STS) Version 2.2 (draft) with separate risk table 7.2 (“Draft DPIA 07.08.23 V2.2”) Satellite Tracking Services (STS) Version 2.3 (draft) with separate

13. See Opinion of OE article 29, 2/2017, p. 18. 13See. Opinion of OE article 29, 2/2017, p. 28. 14 See. Opinion of OE article 29, 2/2017, pp. 28-29. 12

(2) (f) and Article 14 (2) (g), Article 14 (1) andArticle 15 (1) (h) and Article 21 (1)infringement of Article 18 (1) (a) and (d).order the restriction

with NIF P3120800B, for the alleged violation of article 5.1.b) in relation to article 6.4 of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the RGPD

minimisation principle related, as per Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and the lack of transparent information, as per Article 12 GDPR. The decision is the consequence

of the judgment article 6, d) and article 6, e) of the GBA law, but this should be read as article 6.1. d) and Article 6.1. e) of the GDPR. Decision on the

The Swedish DPA held that a controller has violated article 12(3) GDPR, because, although they complied with an erasure request, they did not subsequently

private and professional spheres, to be applicable (see Article 2 and Article 41, paragraph 2, Cost). Niemietz c. Allemagne, 16.12.1992 (Rec. no. 13710/88)

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

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

have the data processed; (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a), the existence of the right to withdraw consent at any time

basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR: “...there is a risk that the Draft Decision’s failure to establish Whatsapp IE's infringement of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, pursuant

accordance with Article 4(1) GDPR, according to the DPA. The Court of Appeal of Brussels held that, in accordance with Article 16 GDPR, the data subject

and Article 60 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1781) and pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) in connection

images to Instagram are: A.A.A., born 07/25/2005. B.B.B., born on 05/02/2006 C.C.C., born 11/19/2005 2. That, according to the Judicial Police, the video

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

with Article 2 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation the general data protection regulation applies to data processing. According to Article 4 (1)

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

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

to Article 83(2)(k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, "Penalties and corrective measures", states that: "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

(f), 9 and 32(1)(b) GDPR.” Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i), the DPA hence imposed an administrative fine as per Article 83(4) and (5) GDPR. Given that the

board of 4 companies, 2 of which are active economic activity, 2 have been left to disappear (incl. VAT payers… / there Page 2 2 (4) characterize me /…

basis of Article 58, paragraph 2, point b) GDPR and Article 100, §1, 5 ° WOG to be reprimanded for the infringement of Article 25 (1) GDPR; b. on the basis

signifies cativa (article 83.2 b).  Basic personal identifiers are affected, (name, surname, two, domicile) (according to article 83.2g). Therefore, based

4 and article 15 of the GDPR (right of access), for reasons set out below. Furthermore, in accordance with article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and article 95, §

according to article 5 par. 1 a) and f) GDPR. B. It imposes, on ALFA BANK S.A., as controller, based on article 58 par. 2 sec. i) of the GDPR, an administrative

personal data, even without references to names. Moreover, (2) it included health data (Article 4(15) GDPR) as the newsletters were send to patients of the respected

negligence of the offense (article 83.2 b). - Basic personal identifiers (name, data) are affected banks, the line identifier) ​​(article 83.2 g). That is why it

Legal basis: Article 4 lines 1, 2 and 5, Article 11 paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 12 paragraph 2, Article 17 paragraph 1 and Article 58 paragraph 2 lit. c of

several violations of the GDPR. Firstly, the USL had not documented its processing activities as required by Article 30 GDPR, despite the two years between

rectification.(article 16 of the GDPR), the right to be forgotten (article 17 of the GDPR), and the right to limit the use ofdata processed unlawfully (article 18

comply with GDPR Article 12 (1) and GDPR Article 5 (2) of the provisions of paragraph 2, and he did not even mention the Data Subject 2. Based on GDPR Article

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

respecting the time limits as set out to in Article 12(5) of the GDPR and Article 35(2) of the Dutch GDPR Implementation Act? According to the court, the

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, in relation to article 5 of the LOPDGDD, as indicated in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. The telematic

information duty included in Article 13 GDPR. Is this a violation of Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD held that there had been a violation of Article 13. According to the

PCR (SARS_CoV-2) test is to be qualified as a health data pursuant to Article(4)(15) GDPR and that the scope of protection of Article 9(2) must be taken

a, 13.1.c, 13.2.d, 13.2.a and 13.2.e between 15 June and 2 December 2020 as regards departures. (b) infringements that took place from 2 December 2020

Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/55 of the LOPDGDD, as indicated in article 83.5 of the RGPD, and article 58.2.b)of the RGPD . "No allegations were received regarding

the data subjects, therefore breaching Article 6 GDPR, as well as Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Thirdly, Article 30 GDPR stipulates that the controller must keep

Company itself, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation, Article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code and Article 18 of Law no. 689/1981

comprehensible character, within the meaning of Article 12 of the GDPR, of the information provided for in Article 13 of the Regulation must be assessed. The

within a specified period - Article 58. 2 d)-. In accordance with Article 83(2) of the RGPD, the measure provided for in Article 58(2)(d) of that Regulation

data breaches from more than twenty Danish banks in accordance with Article 33 GDPR. The reported data breaches concern the accidental disclosure of personal

Protection RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE Ms. B.B.B., with NIF *** NIF.2, for a violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction

within the meaning of Article 4(15) GDPR and Article 9(1) GDPR. Processing of sensitive data requires a legal basis under Article 9(2) GDPR. In the present case

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

in Article 83 (2) GDPR, in this case, the aggravating circumstances for being a non-intentional but significant negligent action (Article 83 (2) (b) GDPR)

significant negligent action (article 83.2 b).  Basic personal identifiers are affected, according to the article 83.2g). Therefore, in accordance with

companies Menzis and VGZ € 50.000 for insufficient security measures under Article 32 GDPR. Translated summary by the AP (The Netherlands): In 2018, the Authority

is maintained under Article 6.1 b) to f) of the GDPR and therefore in Article 6.1.c) invoked in the species. Article 6.1 of the GDPR in fact reproduces

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

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

for the claim to be struck out under 3.4(2)(a) and (b) CPR or, alternatively, to grant summary judgement under 24.2 CPR since “it did not process the data

accordance with article 15 AVG (section 2.1) - data processing officer (section 2.2) - cookie policy (section 2.3) - health data processing (section 2.4) - camera

violations provided for by articles 162, paragraph 2-bis, 162, paragraph 2-ter, and 164-bis, paragraph 2, of the Code regarding the protection of personal

by Article 83(2)(b) GDPR, and also the link between the company's activity and the processing of personal data, as provided for by Article 76(2)(b) GDPR

proceedings. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to A.A.A. and B.B.B. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, this Re- The solution will be made

regulation as established in thearticle 2.2 of the RGPD and article 2.2.a) of the LOPDGDD. It says to article 2.2 of the RGPD:"2. This Regulation does not apply

right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”) of Article 17 GDPR and Article 19 of Regulation 2018/1725. Under GDPR, such prolonged and unrestricted data retention

measures to security of processing, in accordance with Article 32 GDPR, in connection with Article 24 GDPR, as the controller did not take into account the risks

RETAIL S.L. for alleged infringement of Article 5.1 f) of the GDPR, in accordance with Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR- Initiate sanctioning procedure against

processing involved special categories of data under Article 9 GDPR and whether an exception under Article 9(2) applied; • targeted advertising by the controller

authority, are established in article 58.2 of the RGPD. In- Among them are the power to sanction with warning -article 58.2 b) -, the power to impose an administrative

Camera" (which processes image and voice) according to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR? The ANSPDCP found that the staff of the General Directorate

allegations of D. B.B.B. exceed the jurisdiction of the Board, being able to go to court. The complaining party states that D. B.B.B. cannot access the

proposing that B.B.B. with NIF *** NIF.1, with a fine of € 1,000 (thousand euros) for the violation of article 21 of the LSSI, typified in article 38.4.d) of

as indicated in article 25.2 of the RGPD. In this sense, it is meant that the indeterminacy referred to in the article 25.2 of the GDPR refers to the default

violation of article 21 of the LSSICE, classified as serious in article 38.3.d) and c) of said rule, for the alleged infringement of article 48.1.b) of the

interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The data subject was heard on this statement and filed a submission, arguing that Article 6(1)(f) GDPR does not apply

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

claimed, by thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of theRGPD.FIFTH: On 06/22/20, this Agency received a written allegations

Infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR on the principle of integrity and confidentiality. 22 6.2.2 Infringement of Article 5(2) GDPR on the principle of accountability

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

subject has exercised their right to object under Article 21 GDPR. In the same way, Article 48(1)(b) of the Spanish General Telecommunications Act grants

should have applied Article 35 GDPR. In light of the above, the Italian DPA used its corrective powers under Article 58(2)(c) and 83 GDPR and fined the controller

there is no explicit consent by the customers as requested under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and an implied consent cannot fulfill the provision’s requirement

confidentiality 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

applies to the present case art. 22, paragraph 13, of Legislative Decree 101/2018 (see note of 17 May 2019, cit., Pp. 1-2); b) "the assimilation of the case

(1)-(3), Article 83 (5)(e) in connection with Article 31, Article 58 (1)(e), Article 58 (2)(i) of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the

dossier werden toegevoegd. 2. Motivering 2.1. De bevoegdheid van de Inspectiedienst en de Geschillenkamer en de omvang van het dossier 2.1.1. Het verzoek van

account the provisions of Article 7:671b (8) opening words and under (b) of the Dutch Civil Code (old), on the basis of Article 7:671b (1) opening words and

negligent action (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) and that basic identifiers such as name, surname, and address are affected (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR), including also

complainant, Article 83(2)(h) GDPR - The existence of a prior complaint. Aggravating factors in accordance with Article 72(2)(a) & (b) LOPDGDD and Article 83(2)(k)

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

intention to infringe either article 5(1)( c) or article 34(1) of the GDPR. Legal framework 8.1. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR “Personal Data shall be:

Debtor pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation because its data processing activities violated Article 5 (1) (d) of the

sedeagpd.gob.es 17/28 ANNEX 0 A.A.A. (hereinafter claimant 1). B.B.B. (hereinafter claimant 2). C.C.C. (hereinafter claimant 3). D.D.D. (hereinafter claimant

context of Articles 40 and 41 GDPR, in particular from Article 40 Paragraph 4 in conjunction with Article 41 Paragraph 2 lit. c) GDPR, namely further that a monitoring

violated Articles 12(3), (4), 13(2)(b), 30(1)(d) and (g) of the GDPR and issued a warning by virtue of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR. Due to the anonimisation