Search results

with the obligations under Article 6, §2, al. 5 and Article 9 of the Camera Act 1 2. there is a serious indication that article 6, § 2, al. 4 of the aforementioned

required by article 6 of the RGPD. The data processing carried out violates article 6 of the RGPD conduct that is subsumed in article 83.5 of the RGPD

twenty thousand euros), under¬ Article 6.1 (a) and Article 5.1 (a) of the GDPR, under consideration as ‘very serious’, in¬ Article 71 (1) (a) and (b), respectively

Articles 5.1.b) and 5.1.c) of the GDPR pursuant to Article 95, §1, 3° of the LCA; - pursuant to Article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of the

(provision no. 508 of 30 December 2011, provision no. 364 of 10 July 2014 and provision no. 28 of February 6, 2020 cited; Court of Rome March 5, 2019, no. 5071);

para. of the GDPR, the law or regulation that constitutes the legal basis referred to in letters c) and e) of co. 1 of art. 6 of the GDPR, could contain

controller had violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 17(1) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

data collected and (5) without having adopted appropriate security measures, in violation of Articles 5, 12, 13, 25, 28 and 32 GDPR. The GPDP held that

real estate company Deutsche Wohnen SE € 14.5 million for violation of Article 5(1)(e) and Article 25(1) GDPR as the company's archive system was structurally

accordance with Article 38.3 of the AVG 5. On 5 October 2021, the Disputes Chamber decided on the basis of article 95, §1, 1°and article 98 of the CPC that

data on the basis of Article 6.1.e GDPR ? - Did the administration sharing confidential data with a third party violates article 25 GDPR ? - Should the administration

of minimum data processing (Article 5.1. c) GDPR). 33. In order to check whether the third condition of Article 6.1 f) GDPR - the so-called "Balancing test"

GDPR and Article 66.2 WOG); and • compliance with the transparency obligations (Article 12 GDPR) and the te provide information (Article 13 GDPR). Page

accuracy of the data processed (Article 5, paragraph 1, letter d) of the Regulation), nor in terms of safety and integrity (Article 5, paragraph 1, letter f) of

infraction of art. 5.1.d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016, typified in art. 83.5 of the aforementioned

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

processing operations should not be disproportionate.5 disproportionate.5 16. Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR provides that personal data must be be "collected

the GDPR sees in Individual provisions stipulate a risk-based approach (e.g. Art. 24 Para. 1 and Para. 2, Art. Article 25(1), Article 30(5), Article 32(1)

accordance with Article 12 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 6 and Article 5 (2). 1 (c). The Data Inspectorate has hereby emphasized that Article 12 (2) of

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

be given. 1.5 Further documents from [appellants] were received at the Registry of the Court on 18 December 2019, 23 December 2019 and 30 December 2019

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

contemplates in its article 76, entitled “San- corrective measures and actions ”: "1. The sanctions provided for in sections 4, 5 and 6 of article 83 of the Regulation

complied with the obligation of transparency (Article 5.1 a) GDPR in conjunction with Article 12.1 GDPR) because not only the privacy statement was updated

was contrary to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR (principle of lawfulness), Article 5(1)(b) GDPR (principle of purpose limitation) and Article 6 GDPR (absence of valid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the processing is thus in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 (c) and Article 5 (1). Paragraph 1 (e), where processing and

arises from Article 5.2 and Article 24 GDPR where it is up to the defendant to demonstrate that they also acts in accordance with article 5.1. f GDPR namely:

agreements Article 12 (1) of the GDPR 17 IV.5. Legal consequences (72) The Authority finds that the Client has infringed Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR, Article 6 Article

the processing of personal data of the data subject (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR; Article 6 and Article 8 of the Italian Legislative Decree No. 101 of August

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

the proceedings, pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 5, of the Code, for the adoption of the measures referred to in Article 58, paragraph 2, of the Regulation

finding under article 15 of the GDR instead of the provisions of article 15 of the GDR. 36, § 4 and § 5 as well as Article 38, § 1 of the Law of 30 July 2018

breach of Article 6 GDPR, in that the processing was not necessary for its legal obligation. In addition, the chamber found a breach of Article 5 GDPR, in that

is only determined by Article 5 et seqq. GDPR. A violation of Article 13 or 14 GDPR can be fined under Article 83(5) GDPR but it does not affect the lawfulness

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

the criminal sanction referred to in Article 170 of the Code and the administrative fine provided for in Article 83(5)(e) of the Regulation shall apply;

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.

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

legitimate on the basis of Article 9 (2) (B) GDPR in conjunction with Article 32 GDPR" (see note cited, p. 4) (see footnote cit., p. 5-8). 1.6. On 4.8.2020,

Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the GDPR, persons such as [the claimant] can object to the processing of their personal data on the basis of Article 6(1)(e) or

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

B02547164, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 GDPR, a fine of FIVE THOUSAND EUROS (€ 5,000.00). SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

management of the signed contract ”.On 11/30/2018, in accordance with the provisions of article 9.5 of the RealDecree-Law 5/2018, the acceptance agreement for

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

obligation of the controller (Article 6 (1) (c)) or to perform a public interest task or exercise public authority paragraph (e)). Article 6 (3) of the Data Protection

pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, of the Regulation, with this measure. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of

Articles 5(1)(a) GDPR and 13 GDPR. On the other hand, they disagreed with the infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR in relation to Article 9(1) GDPR with regard

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

pursuant to Article 100, §1, 5° WOG, to order a disqualification for the violation of Article 5.1, a), Article 5.2, Article 6, Article 12.1, Article 14.1 a)

Therefore the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) and (2), Article 6(1), Article 12(1), Article 13(1)(b) and (c) GDPR. The DPA imposed a fine of €50.000

controls, has a date (21.5.2018) subsequent to the date on which the complainant's computer was accessed (16.5.2018) (note 1.3.2019, p. 4-5). 1.4. On 17 May 2019

processing carried out is in violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32 GDPR and Article 35 GDPR. Especially, the controller cannot exclude

controller for the purposes of Article 4(7) GDPR, and Company A was the processor for the purposes of Article 4(8) GDPR. The DPA found that both Companies

to ask to be heard by the Authority, within 30 days (Article 166, paragraphs 6 and 7, of the Code, and Article 18, paragraph 1, by Law No. 689 of 24/11/1981)

purpose thus breaching the principles of data minimization under article 5 (1) (c) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The

in the plublic interest, under the data minimisation principle and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. A citizen requested the deletion of their personal data into the

regarding Articles 5(1)(b) GDPR and 5(1)(e) GDPR and held that national courts had to determine, using the factors of Article 6(4) GDPR, whether further

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

of the Italian Privacy Code (d. lgs. 30 giugno 2003, n. 196). Article 122 is a direct transposition of Article 5(3) of the Directive. The violation of

right to access under Article 15 GDPR because the controller was entitled to reject the request pursuant to Article 12(5)(b) GDPR. The court reasoned that

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

the Company, 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

representation does not replace Article 9 (2) (a) and (c) consent of the data subject in accordance with Article 7. Article 7 (1) of the ECHR provides that

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

captures activities of employees without their knowledge compliant with Article 5 GDPR? The DPA concluded that the video surveillance system introduced by

authority, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 47 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on Personal Data Protection and Guarantee of Digital

accordance with Article 13(58i2) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 83(1)(a) of the GDPR. 5 of the GDPR, and with Article 21(5) of the GDPR, and with Article

company. In this case, it is not the consent referred to in Article 6(1)(a), Article 7 or Article 9(2)(a) of the Data Protection Regulation, but a separate

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 a

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

investigations the CNIL found five breaches of the GDPR: -         Violation of the right to object, Article 21(2) GDPR: no procedure was implemented to ensure effectively

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

pursuant to the Article 17(3)(b) of the GDPR. However, Statistics Denmark has been criticised for not complying with the Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR, namely,

registered on the Robinson List in breach of Article 48(1)(b) LGT and Article 21 GDPR in conjunction with Article 23(4) LOPDGDD. Avilon Center SL made an voluntary

other things, article 4 paragraph 1 SUWI and the ZBO register of the Dutch central government. See article 2 paragraph 2 SUWI and article 4 paragraph 1

of his right to rectification, as referred to in Article 16 of the GDPR. 5. Pursuant to Article 12.3 GDPR, the controller must inform the data subject without

complainant's property. On 30 March 2021, the complaint was dismissed by the Front-line Service of the DPA, on the basis of Article 58 and 60 of the Act of

paragraph 5, of the Code, the notification to the company of the alleged violations of the Regulation found, with reference to Articles 5, par. 1, lett

1781) in connection with Article 31, Article 58(1)(a) in connection with Article 83(1)-(3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European

Judiciales (JAVA). JAVA infringed Article 6(1)(a) GDPR by publishing illegal recordings on its website and also infringed Article 22(2) LSSI due to its cookie

electoral rolls. In accordance with Article 14(5)(c) AVG, information must be provided in Article 14, paragraph 1 and Article 14(2) AVG are not mentioned when

against privacy included in Article 197(1) of the Spanish Criminal Code, with the aggravating circumstance from Article 197(5) of being data related to the

processed (data minimization), would that be an infringement of the Article 5.(1)(c) GDPR? The AEPD held, that it is responsibility of the demandant to make

and violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. It also did not process personal data with an appropriate level of security, as required by Article 32 GDPR. The company

processing 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

cookies, as per Article 22(2) Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI). This law regulates cookies, connected to Article 13 GDPR. The decision

DPA 5. The General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter: the GDPR) applies on 25 May 2018 become. The GDPR imposes the same obligation in Article 32

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

A78923125, for an infringement of Article 58 (2) of the GDPR, as set out in Article 83 (5) (e) of the GDPR, a fine of EUR 30.000,00 (thirty thousand euros)

issues a reprimand under Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. After this, the DPA draws attention to the fact that pursuant of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, data must be processed

the 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

in the management of patients’ personal data and severe violations of the GDPR. The DPA recognised the efforts that the hospital is planning to put to improve

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 Protection of Personal Data andguarantee

their privacy policy in line with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR within a month. The AEPD also held that URLs 1-4 breached Article 22(2) of the Law 34/2002 (LSSI)

ofcontroller (article 4.7 of the GDPR), the scope of the GDPR (article3.1 of the GDPR), the right to erasure (article 17 of the GDPR) and its powers (article 58.2of

NIF B67421867, for a infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, with a a fine of 30,000 euros (thirty thousand euros)

Giessegi violated Articles 5(1)(a) and 13 GDPR, as it did not provide the data subject with a proper privacy policy. Article 28 GDPR was also infringed, as

inviolable. Article 17, paragraph 1, preamble and under d, of the GDPR therefore does not give the claimant a right to erasure. Article 21 of the GDPR 7. On

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

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

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

compelling reasons within the meaning of Article 9 of the protocol on monitoring systems. That article reads as follows: "Article 9 Articles 05 to 08 do not affect

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

relation to the requirements prescribed by Article 12.1 of the GDPR (transparency obligation) and by Article 13 of the GDPR (right to information). The Head of

according to Article 4, point 11, as well as the Restrictions according to Article 7 GDPR. (149) According to Article 5 (1) point b) of the GDPR, personal

(f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and

refuse is insufficient. 5.5. The merits of the appeal to the extent directed against the GBA - the violation of article 12.3 GDPR. 5.5.1. The Bank X further

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

controller's disclosure to the private expert resulted in a breach of the GDPR. However, on 5 September 2022, the DPA dismissed the complaint because it concerned

fairness principle, violating Article 5(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and Article 6 in conjunction with Article 8 Personal Data Protection

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

fairness and transparency established in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Moreover, the DPA found a violation of Article 13 GDPR, since the controller did not correctly

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

has taken place in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 32 (1) (f) and Article 35. Below is a more detailed review

provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Spanish Agency for Data Protection is competent to perform the functions assigned to it in its article 57, among

violation of article 17 in combination with article 21 par. 3 and article 12 paragraph 3 of the GDPR and article 25 paragraph 1 of the GDPR. For its judgment

five thousand euros (5,000.00) euros, for the above violations of article 17 in combination with article 21 par. 3 of the GCP and article 25 par. 1 of the

of a Commission decision on adequacy , or in Article 46, Article 47 or the second subparagraph of Article 49 (1) (a) the period for which the personal

on the basis of the notification, Article 57 (1) f) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 38. § Article 1Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the

cf. Article 5, and that they didn't have any legal grounds for this processing as per Article 6, cf. Article 5 (the latter because the information was confidential

therefore lack the implementation of such adequate safeguards and violate Article 32 GDPR. In this regard, the controller has not received any communications

controller violated Article 5(1)(d) GDPR ("accuracy"), but a more natural conclusion would be to find a violation of Article 32(1)(d) GDPR ("adoption of adequate

time tracking system, due to a lack of compatibility with Article 7(4) and Article 35(9) of GDPR. KEO PLC decided to upgrade its ERP system, whose upgrade

***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 the aforementioned Regulation

identity "(Article 4, par. 1, 1, of the GDPR). The processing of personal data must also take place in compliance with the principles indicated in art. 5 of the

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

right of access under Article 15 GDPR? By denying the complainant access, did the respondent infringe Articles 12(1) or 12(2) GDPR? The NAIH that the complainant's

defendant on the basis of Article 100.1, 5 ° LCA given the breach noted in Article 6 of the GDPR combined with Article 5.1.a) of GDPR; - To dismiss the remainder

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

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”

appeal is brief, it contains a ground as referred to in Article 6: 5, read in conjunction with Article 6:24 of the General Administrative Law Act. The appeal

amount of the fine under Article 83(2) GDPR. The data subjects complains about the violation of its right of access (Article 15 GDPR) by the Istituto Nazionale

provisions of article 9 of the GDPR, which implies the commission of an infringement classified in section 5.a) of the Article 83 of the GDPR. Article 83.5.a) of

held, in its communications with the complainants, that Article 6(5) of Attachment 5, and not Article 6(2) – providing for a shorter retention period of 24

pursuant to Article 13 GDPR. In the present case, the controller omitted this obligation. The DPA therefore held that the controller violated Article 13 GDPR

(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)

cites Articles 5(1)(b) and (e), 9(2)(j), 89(1) GDPR and Section 7(1)(1) and (2)(1) GDPR. In particular, it follows from Article 9(2)(j) GDPR that the processing

this data breach a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR? The AEPD concluded that there was no violation of Article 32(1) GDPR, because the company had implemented

April 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

subject’s right to access under Article 15 GDPR, and thus also a breach of the principle of openness pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Datatilsynet stressed that

Netherlands Relevant Law: Article 12(2) GDPR Article 12(5) GDPR Article 15 GDPR Type: Investigation Outcome: Violation Found Started: Decided: 30.07.2019 Published:

A.U. with NIF A-65559296, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

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

[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

drones equipped with cameras a personal personal data in the sense of Article 4 GDPR ? Did the Ministry of Interior comply with the French Data Protection

€150,000 on Xfera Móviles S.A. (defendant) for infringing Article 17, 32, 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 21 LSSI. The fine was imposed after investigating two complaints

controller processed personal data in violation with the provisions of Article 5(1)(a-d)GDPR (the principles of: lawfulness, fairness and transparency; purpose

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

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

in the terms required by article 22.2. ”, and may be sanctionednothing with a fine of up to € 30,000, in accordance with article 39 of the aforementioned

breached Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Therefore, the DPA handed down a 'call to order' against the joint controllers for breaching Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, and no

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

public interest in accordance with national law. It follows from Article 5(1)(b) GDPR that further processing for archival purposes in the public interest

breach of the obligations of Article L. 34-5 of the Postal and Electronic Communications Code 11. According to article L. 34-5 of the CPCE: " Direct prospecting

terminated, must be assessed in the light of Article 6 GDPR and not Article 10 GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR provides a sufficient basis for processing. The

the social and health authority of a city to had breached Article 6 GDPR and Article 10 GDPR by requesting data subjects to provide it with personal data

resulting from Article L. 34-5 of the CPCE and Article 7-1 of the GDPR. B. On the breaches relating to the exercise of rights 27. According to Article 12 of the

(infringement of Article 24 and 5.2 GDPR)Second vemreermiddel: the request of the complainant 's request for erasure in themeaning of Article 17 GDPR; third party

principles of legality, transparency and security under Article 5(1)(a) and (f) GDPR, and Article 32(1)(2) GDPR, as well as failure to satisfy the right of access

obligation of Article 32 GDPR? - Does the fact that this health data is not encrypted constitute a breach of the security obligation under Article 32 GDPR? - Does

design and default. The CNIL ordered the Ministry to comply with Article 24 and 25 GDPR regarding the collection and further processing of personal data

Moreover, the information provided as per Article 13 GDPR were not compliant with the requirements of Article 12 GDPR in light of the fact that TikTok services

protected by article 5 par. 1 item a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR. 12. Because, since a lack of compliance with the provisions of article 5 par.

found violations of Articles 5(1)(c) and 6 GDPR and Article 29(1) of Law 125(I)/2018. Concerning the violation of Article 29(1) of Law 125(I)/2018, the

integrity and confidentiality when processing personal data according to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD confirmed that there was no Facebook profile with the name

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

lawfulness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a), 6 and 9 GDPR) as well as its obligations under Article 12, 14, 15 and 27 GDPR. The DPA fined the controller

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

more personal data than strictly necessary within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR. The FPS Finance therefore does not comply with the data minimization

and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and Article 28(1) GDPR. Second, the DPA found that, since the data processing

BKR is covered by Article 6, clause 1 (c) of the AVG and not by Article 6, clause 6 (f) of the AVG. The BKR itself refers to Article 6, clause 1 (f) of

conferred on each individual by Article 58(2) of the GPRS, the authority, and in accordance with Article 47 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, Protection of

his/her consent. The DPA first outlined Article 6(1)(a) and (b) GDPR, Articles 4(11) GDPR on consent, as well as Article 6 of the Spanish Data Protection Law

organization (definition) Article 5.1: Data processing principles Article 5.1.a: Principle of legality, objectivity and transparency Article 5.1. b: Principle of

right of access under Article 15 of the GDPR and the right to erasure (‘forgotten’) under Article 17 of the GDPR, Article 12 of the GDPR on measures to exercise

obligations under Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 of GDPR. Article 5 (1) : Ticketmaster has failed to comply with the requirements of GDPR including to process

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

lawfulness, the Litigation Chamber concludes that Article 5.1.a. of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 6 of the GDPR have not been complied with with regard to

accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) UK GDPR because it failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(1)(a) and (c) UK GDPR principles of lawfulness

(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

under the GDPR and the controller could not comply with its obligation under Article 19 GDPR. For this reason, the court held that the GDPR violation did

timetable" "B.- In accordance with Article 67 of the GDPR, the Inspectorate of the AEPD, in accordance with Article E/0113/2019, carried out the following

frame necessary about the outcome of a request to have data erased under GDPR Article 17. The National Supervisory Authority conducted an investigation into

time limit for payment is until 5 of the second next or immediate working month. Pursuant to Article 82 of Law 62/2003 of 30 December on¬ tax, administrative

to the claimed, by thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c), 5.1 f) and 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article83.5 of the RGPD.FIFTH. On 07/29/20, a Proposal

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

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

the GDPR, [applicants] suffered immaterial damage estimated at € 750 per applicant. Uber must compensate for that damage under Article 82 GDPR. 3.5. Uber

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

subject relied on the GDPR to anonymise and redact deeds which were key to the proceedings, on the basis of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR (data minimisation). In

meaning of Article 4 No. 7 GDPR. However, the defendant cannot be accused of violating an obligation to provide information under Art. 15, 12 GDPR. Paragraph

been deleted by the employer upon request pursuant to Article 16, Article 17 and Article 5(1)(d) GDPR (inaccuracy of personal data). Therefore, the employer

that a controller is allowed to reject a request to access under Article 12(5)(b) GDPR as "excessive" if the request's sole purpose is to verify the validity

principles to the GDPR;
 
 (b) The effect (if any) of the remaining claims – Article 5(1)(f) GDPR (the data security principle), the Article 8 claim and

her life. Her objection to processing follows from Article 21(1) GDPR. ING argues that Article 21(1) GDPR cannot be relied on in this case because it applies

with the terms of the decree of 29 May 2020, pursuant to Article 5-1-a) of the RGPD. Article 5(1)(a) of the Regulation stipulates that: personal data must

adequate information under Article 13 GDPR, and for the processing of personal data in a manner contrary to Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. A data subject submitted

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

for in Article 13, paragraph 5 of the DSG and Article 50d, paragraph 1 of the DSG 2000 violates Article 13, paragraph 5 in conjunction with Article 62, paragraph

Paal in Paal/Pauly, DSGVO/BDSG , Article 15 paragraph 33; Schaffland/Holthaus in Schaffland/Wiltfang, GDPR, Article 15 GDPR paragraph 44; loc. A. Härting

the alert on the SIS system under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. The reason for the data subject invoking the GDPR is that Article 53(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1861

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

the company would have breach the data minimisation principle from Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. With regard to the union's demand to provide a list of the workers'

against the defendant, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: On 06/02/20, this Agency received

principle, namely the breaches of articles 5-1-c), 5 -1 e), 13, 32 and 35-1 of the GDPR; no breach of Article 6 of the GDPR and of Directive 2002/58 / EC of the

violation of article 5.1.c), typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned rule, a sanction of APPEARANCE. SECOND: ORDER, under the provisions of article 58.2

purposes in Article 73, sections j), k) and p) of the LOPDGDD, for violation of article 44 of the RGPD typified in accordance with article 83.5.c) of the

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 LOPDGDD

57(1)(a) and Article 58(2)(b) in connection with Article 5(1)(f), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1) and (2) of 2 of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European

information [...]". 5. Because according to the above article 17 of the GDPR, as it has been interpreted according to the content of the Guidelines 5/2019 of the

in Article 17 GDPR (cf. Article 17 (3) b GDPR). In that case, the data subject does not have the right to object as referred to in Article 21 GDPR, because

banned from the game. On 30 May 2019, the data subject filed an access request at the controller pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. It is not clear from the

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

Secondly, under Article 83 of the GDPR: "1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this article for violations

this regard within the meaning of Article 2 (2) point d) GDPR. Whichcertain officials of the defendant under Article 5, §2 of the Second Ordinanceare appointed

processed" (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR). The Finish DPA ruled that the controller did not comply with the principle of data minimization set out in Article 5(1)(c)

violated the general data protectionArticle 5 (1) (a), Article 5 (2), Article 12 (1) and (4) ofArticle 14, Article 15 and Article 21 (4).1.3. The Authority condemns

within the meaning of Article 4 no. 2 of the GDPR and the term "transfer" within the meaning of Article 44 et seq. of the GDPR. GDPR had to be differentiated

interpretation of Article 55(3) GDPR would not cover this as judicial activity. Therefore, the complaint is not admissible in accordance with Article 130 Paragraph

request because the processing was necessary according to Article 17(3)(b) GDPR and Article 17(3)(e) GDPR. The controller stated that, according to Chapter 8

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

infringements of article 6.1 and 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (Regulation General Data Protection, hereinafter RGPD) typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned

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)

3.2.3. To an objection by the BF according to Art 21 GDPR According to Article 21 Paragraph 1 GDPR, every person concerned has the right to object at any

National Defense violated the principle of dataminimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. It reasoned that the Type A Certificate's general purpose is to

accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/5 the fourth additional provision

processing was therefore in breach of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR. The DPA also ruled out Article 6(1)(f) on the grounds of domestic law:

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)

information obligation provided for a / 'article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR. (...) Pursuant to article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR, the responsibility for processing

violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/5 FOURTH: On

opening clause in Article 86 GDPR if the disclosure involves personal data? The court held that the VIG complies with Article 86 GDPR: The provisions of

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, a warning sanction and for a violation of article 32 of the GDPR, typified

and 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

Klarna violate Article 15 of the GDPR? The DPA considered that Klarna failed to process the request within the timeframe required by Article 12(3) and without

( *** 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

meaning of Article 5.1.c. AVG). 13. The transcript of the hearing is subsequently transmitted to the parties on 28 June 2023; in accordance with Article 54 of

principles of purpose limitation and data minimization under Article 5(1)(b) and (c) GDPR. A request of civic access was presented to the Udine City Council

according to which data subjects may request delisting as under Article 17.1 GDPR. 30. The GDPR therefore changes the burden of proof, providing a presumption

breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR ("integrity and confidentiality"). Therefore, the Spanish DPA held that there was an infringement of the GDPR. It imposed

fine of €6,000 imposed for violation of Article 32 GDPR and a fine of €5,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Additionally instructed the erasure

amended; Article 82 para 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (Basic Data Protection Regulation - DSGVO), OJ L 207, 30.12.2009, p. 1. No. L 119 of 4.5.2016, p

including Article 129 WEC which implements Article 5.3 of Directive 2002/5815 (hereinafter, "ePrivacy Directive"), in accordance with Article 14 § 1 of