Search results

section 6 (2) of the Data Protection Act.n as a safeguard in accordance with subsection 2.n as a safeguard in accordance with subsection 2. 15. According

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

would have been required by Article 29 GDPR. Moreover, in violation of Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(2), and Article 34(4) GDPR, the controller had not implemented

change its practices to guarantee the right to object in accordance with the GDPR. The DPA received 40 complaints against the cinema company Finnkino regarding

Authority of Bologna for violation of Articles 5(2)(f) and 9 GDPR. On the basis of Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR, the Garante imposed a fine of € 18 000 on the

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

elements provided for in Article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As to the nature and seriousness of the violation (Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), it is that with respect

under this Article. Article 11 (2) In the cases referred to in paragraphs 15 to 22, the controller shall exercise their rights under Article may not refuse

specific enough and did not comply with Article 13 GDPR. Does the lack of precision enough to infrige Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD found that the information

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.

contrary to the legal provisions established in article 22.2 LSSI. This Infraction is classified as "minor" in Article 38.4 g) of the aforementioned Law, and may

data within the meaning of Article 4(2) in the course of proceedings under both Articles 77 and 78 of the GDPR. Article 4(2) refers to disclosure as a

The case did not fall under the scope of the GDPR, as the GPS tracking started and ended before the GDPR was applicable (08. 05. 2017 until 31. 01. 2018)

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

force: "According to Article 16 sentence 1 GDPR, every data subject has the right to request the controller (see Article 4(7) GDPR) to correct incorrect

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

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

for more details. Article 2: Material scope Article 2.2.c: Exclusively personal or domestic activity Article 3: Territorial scope Article 4.1: Personal data

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

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

exercising their rights in bad faith. The AEPD brought forward Article 12(5) GDPR, as well as Article 7 of the Spanish Civil Code, that states that rights must

more details. Article 2: Substantive scope Article 2.2.c: Exclusively personal or domestic activity Article 3: Territorial scope Article 4.1: Personal

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

compliant with Articles 5 and 6 GDPR. According to Article 6 GDPR, when a controller did not rely on consent (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR), its processing should be

has engaged another real estate agent for the sale. 2 Process flow First instance 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 PME summoned [plaintiff] on May 9, 2018 (see also

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

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

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

registers removed is rejected. 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, [applicant] can rely on Article 21 of the GDPR. Article 21 GDPR gives a data subject the right to object

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 of

contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD and the article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to the infraction committed by violating the established in article 5.1

the basis of article 6.1 e) GDPR read together with articles 5.2 GDPR and 24.1 GDPR. 3) Violation of Articles 12.1, 12.6, 13.1 and 13.2 GDPR: the Inspection

specified in article 32 GDPR (security of processing). In determining the amount of the fine, certain aggravating factors of article 83 GDPR were considered

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) — amongst others, the Spanish law regulating cookies — and Article 13 of

before May 25, 2018. 2.2. Consent and the lawfulness of the processing (Article 4, point 11, Article 6 (1) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR) 121. With regard

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

held that the controller violated Article 12(1) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR, Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 15(3) GDPR. The controller had deleted the data

pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Failure to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with the GDPR The DPA

CPDP issued NRA an order under Article 58(2)(d) supra Article 57(1)(a) and Article 83(2)(a), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the GDPR for undertaking suitable technical

DI-2020-11373 2(23) Date: 2023-06-30 2.2.1 Applicable regulations, etc. ................................................... .....9 2.2.2 The Privacy Protection

After considering the objections in light of Article 4(24) GDPR and the factors outlined in Article 83(2) GDPR the EDPB instructed the DPC to impose an administrative

by the EDPB pursuant to Article 66(2) GDPR. Temporary ban on processing (order) Pursuant to Article 66(1) GDPR and 58(2)(f) GDPR the Norwegian DPA consequently

they filed a complaint, however the accused company acted according to Article 28 GDPR and the Spanish DPA ended the proceedings. A.A.A. (data subject) received

the GDPR does not apply established by the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 para. 1, 2 para. 1 and 3 para. 2 GDPR

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

No. 1, No. 2, Art. 6 para. 1 sentence 1 lit. c, para. 3 sentence 1, Art. 86 GKG § 47 (1), § 52 (2), § 53 (2) no. 2, § 63 (3) sentence 1 no. 2, § 66 (3)

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) —this is the Spanish law regulating cookies, connected to Article 13 of the

the commission of the infraction of article 22.2 of the LSSI. This offense is classified as "slight" in article 38.4 g), of the aforementioned Law, which

L119 and Article 34 of the Law on the Implementation of the General Regulation on data protection ("Official Gazette", number 42/18) and Article 41 paragraph

The Spanish DPA (AEPD) fined Borjamotor, S.A. for infringing Article 7 GDPR and Article Article 21(1) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI)

consent, in line with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The Court recalled that Article 31 of the Croatian Law on the Implementation of the GDPR stipulates that the

violation of the general right of personality under Article 1.1, Article 2.1 of the Basic Law (Article 7, Article 8 of the Basic Law) was to be taken into account

alleged infringement of Article 48.1.b) of the Law LGT, classified as "minor" in Article 78.11) of the aforementioned Law LGT.2, NAME B.B.B. as instructor

§ 8 clause 2 of the GTC agreed between the parties (according to § 8 b paragraph 2 MB/KK). 52 § 8 b para. 2 MB/KK violates §203 sentence 2 VVG and is therefore

violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and a fine of €100,000 for the violation of Article 37 GDPR. The DPA issued a reprimand for the violations of Article 5(1)(e)

space. The DPA found a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR and ordered the controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, to adjust the location of the cameras

company was not compliant with Article 13 GDPR. The CNPD held that the controller infringed Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and decided to: - impose

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) —this is the Spanish law regulating cookies, connected to Article 13 of the

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)

Compétence de la Chambre de Résolution des Litiges (Article 2 AVG ; Article 4 WOG) 55. Conformément à l'article 2, paragraphe 1, de l'AVG, le règlement s'applique

typified in article 83.4 of the RGPD and is qualified as serious in article 73.1 g) of the LOPDPGDD for prescription purposes.III Article 58.Article 58.2 of the

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

by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, since there have been violations of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. The defendant also breached

Croatian DPA did not explain which specific corrective powers under Article 58(2) GDPR it used. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

had a legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR to publish the data subject’s personal data, and did not violate Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. In the decision, the Croatian

by the defendant under Article 6(1) GDPR? Did the controller infringe the data minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR? Did the controller commit

by Article 83.2 of the RGPD, and with the provisions of Article 76 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to paragraph k) of the aforementioned Article 83.2 RGPD

of article 4.19 of the GDPR – (article 13.1. c) of the GDPR) and does not mention the data retention periods personal data processed (article 13.2. a)

according to ***URL.2 - gads, expiring on November 2, 2021 and for advertising purposes according to ***URL.2 - _ga, expiring on 2 November 2021 and for

offence 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

complied with the principle of data minimization as per Article 5 (1) (c) and Article 25 (2) GDPR? The Finnish DPA held that the controller has not complied

basis under Article 6 GDPR to collect and process vehicle registration numbers. The legal basis is a statutory obligation prescribed by Article 229 of the

Policy on their website (Article 13 GDPR) and for the absence of a reject button on the second layer of their Cookie Policy (Article 22(2) LSSI). The claimant

A.A.A., herein the data controller, violated Article 6 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR, as well as Article 22.2 LSSI (Spanish national law). The data subject

it in contrast with Article 88(2) GDPR. In order to better clarify the relationship between paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 88 GDPR, the German court issued

portability; (d) where processing is based on point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2), the existence of the right to withdraw consent at any

installing surveillance cameras in public spaces without a lawful basis under Article 6 GDPR. An individual lodged a complaint with the Spanish DPA (AEPD) arguing

organisation contravene Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? The AEPD found that the disclosure of her personal data to the 400 members violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD stressed

comply with Article 33 GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. Consequently, it issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. First, the

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

for more details. Article 2: Material scope Article 2.2.c: Exclusively personal or domestic activity Article 3: Territorial scope Article 4.1: Personal data

down in the GDPR were not fulfilled. In conclusion, the controller was found to have infringed Article 15 GDPR in conjunction with Article 12 GDPR at the time

a bank was subject to the GDPR in its capacity as a controller and should have answered access requests under Article 15 GDPR.   The complainants are clients

***DOMAIN.2 C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/20 cookies Domain Description dmvk ***DOMAIN.2 usprivacy ***DOMAIN.2 2.- About

h), art. 58 sec. 2 it. e) i i), Art. 83 sec. 1-3 and art. 83 sec. 4 it. a) in connection with Art. 33 paragraph 1 and art. 34 sec. 1, 2 and 4 of Regulation

pursuant to Article 12(3) of the AVG. If, as in this case, such a decision is taken by an administrative body, then, pursuant to Article 34 of the GDPR Implementing

request under Article 21 GDPR can be made at any time and several times. It also found that a provisional measure can be granted under Article 21 GDPR if an urgent

UC (the controller); an access request under Article 15 GDPR and an erasure request under Article 17 GDPR. Regarding the erasure request specifically,

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

establishes article 83.2 of the RGPD, and with the provisions of article 76 of the LOPDGDD, regarding section k) of the aforementioned article 83.2 RGPD. In

the controller was in breach of Article 33(1) GDPR, Article 33(3) GDPR, Articles 34(1) and 34(2) GDPR, and Article 5(2) GDPR, Firstly, the Polish DPA held

25(1) and 25(2). The complaints in Belgium were related to a possible violation of Articles 32 to 34 GDPR and the DPC decision focused on Article 25. The key

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

Data Protection Agency's decision 3.1. Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 34 (1) of the Regulation 1, that when a breach

under Article 34 GDPR or the data protection supervisory authority under Article 33 GDPR because the requirements of the legal definition in Article 4(12)

constitute a breach of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR? The AEPD held, that the actions of the defendant constitute an infringement of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR " Data Minimisation

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

injunctive relief under § 1004.1 sentence 2 of the German Civil Code in conjunction with § 1004.1 sentence 2 of the German Civil Code due to the unlawful

the infringement of the data minimisation principle specified at Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

new page gina *** URL.2, in which information is provided in accordance with those stipulated in the article Article 13 of the GDPR. Regarding the complaint

ordinary courts (Article 34 GG, Article 40(2) VwGO). Moreover, the Court considered the reference to Article 79(2) GDPR from Article 82(6) GDPR, and the fact

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

Jurisdiction: Hungary Relevant Law: Article 32(1)(a) GDPR Article 32(1)(b) GDPR Article 32(2) GDPR Article 33(1) GDPR Article 34(1) GDPR Type: Investigation Outcome:

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

Articles 34 of the Act on the Implementation of the General Regulation on Protection data ("Official Gazette", number: 42/2018), Article 41 and Article 96 of

violation of Article 5(1)(d) of the GPRS, in relation to Article 4(1) of the LOPDGDD, which governs the principle of accuracy of personal data. IV Article 72.1

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

accordance with the law (Article 2 of the Act on land and mortgage registers and mortgage and Article 20 (1) point 1 and Article 24 section 2 of the Geodetic and

with Article 5 (1) (f) and Article 32.1 and 32.2 of the Data Protection Ordinance, Chapter 4 § 2 and ch. 6 § 7 the Patient Data Act and Chapter 4 2 § HSLF-FS

Issue 2 concerned whether the controller had infringed Article 34 GDPR and Issue 3 considered whether the controller had infringed Article 32 GDPR. The

obligations were applicable, therefore violating Article 33 and Article 34 GDPR. According to Article 32(1) GDPR, controllers and processors should implement

this the AZOP held that the controller acted contrary to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR. Moreover, the AZOP reiterated the fact that the pictures

notified in accordance with Article 34 GDPR. Therefore, the DPA found that the controller violated Article 33(1) and Article 34(1) GDPR and imposed a fine of

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

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

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

for the infringement of the confidentiality principle specified at Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

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), the Spanish

company, Iberdrola Clientes, S.A.U for infringing Article 21 GDPR, Article 48(1)(b) LGT, and Article 23(4) LOPDGDD. The initial proposed fine was €10000

[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

of a link to this information. This was a violation of Article 12. Based on Article 13(2)(a) GDPR and WP29 guidelines on transparency, the CNIL noted that

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

should have notified the DPA under Article 33(1) GDPR and the data subjects affected by the breach under Article 34(1) GDPR. Regarding the corrective measure

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

of personal data mentioned in Article 2 (2) GDPR are not relevant. Contrary to the plaintiff's view, Article 2(2)(d) GDPR does not apply in the present

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

legal requirements of Article 15 GDPR. In particular, the DPA stressed the importance of the right of access under Article 15 GDPR, since this right allowed

complainant as per Article 17 GDPR, as well as his/her right as a consumer to refuse unsolicited commercial phone calls, as per Article 21 GDPR in connection

Communications Act § 2-7 b, which implement Article 5 (3) of the Communication Protection Directive, are lex specialis for the Privacy Regulation. Article 95 of the

complaint; b. give notice to the second defendant, pursuant to Article 58(2)(a) AVG and Article 100(1)(5) WOG, that it will not take part in the proceedings

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR? AEPD considered that the documentation provided offers evidence that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) of the GDPR, by processing

according to Article 15 GDPR, which has been directly applicable since May 25, 2018 (Article 99 (2) GDPR). According to Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the person

32(2) GDPR. Finally, the Finnish DPA considered that the firm had failed to respect the principle of accountability enshrined in Article 5(2) GDPR, as

and to cooperate with the DPA, therefore violating Article 31 GDPR and Article 37(1)(a) GDPR. On 2 June 2021, the French DPA (“CNIL”) informed a French

necessary. Thus, the controller acted in accordance with Article 33 GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. In addition, considering that the controller did not present

"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

with the information on Article 15 to 22 requests without delay and in any case within one month of receipt. Article 34 of the GDPR Implementation Act states

right of opposition of persons pursuant to Article 21 of the GDPR 60. According to Article 21.2 of the GDPR: “when the personal data are processed for

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

personal data under Article 15 GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the airline company had not complied with the right to access in Article 15 GDPR when it refused

the GDPR, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(b) and (d) respectively. For the violation of Article 5(1)(f), it issued a fine of €10000, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i)

regarded as a request under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Article 34 of the Gdpr Implementation Act states that a decision on such a request by

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, §

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

"Regarding section k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76," Sanctions and corrective measures", provides:"2. In accordance with the provisions

statement of the Debtor [Article 83 (2) (k) GDPR]; - the processing did not affect specific categories of personal data [Article 83 (2) GDPR paragraph (g)]; -

the defendants for the infringements of the Articles 5.1.f, 5.2, 24, 32, 33.1 and 5, 34.1 GDPR." By decision of 19 May 2021, the Disputes Chamber withdrew

Regulation), Article 34 of the Law on the Implementation of the General Regulation on Data Protection ("Official Gazette", No. 42/18) and Article 96, Paragraph

(cf. Article 36 (2) no. 7 lit. a DPA) for the purposes of military self-protection (cf. Article 36 (1) DPA in conjunction with Article 2 (1) no. 2 MBG)

significant negligent action identified (Art. 83 (2) (b) GDPR). -basic personal affected (Art. 83 (2) (g) GDPR). -Actions previously committed, as this is not

this passage refers to Article 5(2)). The Spanish DPA therefore proposed a fine of €60000 on Vodafone for infringing Article 6(1) GDPR. This was then reduced

Failure to ensure data protection by default (Article 25(2) GDPR) The DPA also found a violation of Article 25(2) GDPR regarding the controllers “X” icon at the

with Article 5 (1) (a) and Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR. Thus, the controller failed to comply with the accountability principle under Article 5 (2) GDPR. Second

hacker attack, hence there had been no violation of Article 12 GDPR, Article 5 GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. The BVwG instead determined that the blocking of

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

of a person (article 83.2 b).-Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, a number ofidentification, the line identifier) ​​(article 83.2 g).- Section

significant (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR). - basic personal identifiers were affected (name, identification number, the line identifier) (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The

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

regard 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)

processing of personal data of clients or third parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD) It is appropriate to graduate

District Court in W. 1.2 The information of the Chief Inspector of Road Transport constitutes information referred to in Article 7(1)(2) of the Act of 20 March

protection of personal data (Article 34 of the Act) and the supervisory authority within the meaning of Regulation 2016/679 (Article 34 (2) of the Act). I. Referring

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

under article 6 GDPR. However, the Court concluded that an immediate notification sent to the data subject was not necessary under article 34 GDPR. In particular

personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. Their processing would require the data subjects' explicit consent under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and § 151(4) GewO,

violation of Article 12 GDPR ? Are the following practices an infringement on data subjects' information right as described in Article 12 GDPR ? Spreading

of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, and to bring its processing into compliance with Article 6(1) GDPR. Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR, and

reasoned in accordance with Article 4(24) GDPR and, after conducting its own assessment of the factors under Article 83(2) GDPR, found that the proposed fine

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

...................... .11 2.2.1 Applicable regulations, etc. ................................................ ...11 2.2.2 The Privacy Protection Authority's

claims journalistic exception according to Article 43 of the GDPR Implementation Act and Article 85 of the GDPR, which means that information obligations

No. 9/1992 as amended: Article 5, Article 6, Article 51, paragraph one, Article 57, paragraph one , Litera f, as well as Article 77, paragraph one, of Regulation

because, under the GDPR, Facebook Norway could not be considered a data controller under Article 4(7) GDPR and Articles 66(1) and 61(8) GDPR were used incorrectly

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

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

out in Article 34(2) of Regulation 2016/679, i.e. it does not contain the information referred to in Article 34(2) in conjunction with Article 33(3)(c)

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

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

a) of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the GDPR. It is based on the same arguments as those developed concerning the breach of article L.34-5 of the GDPR, with

be erased and thus also violates Article 17.1(c) AVG. 3.2. With regard to the infringement of Article 6.1 and Article 21.4 of the AVG 29. In its statement

certain data to be delete. It brought a legal action based on Article 17 GDPR and Article 21 GDPR, read in conjunction with the Dutch Data Protection Act (Wet

directly from Article 77 GDPR. However, the GDPR does not contain any specifications regarding the deadlines for asserting a claim under Article 77 GDPR. The exercise

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

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

have entered into a breacha / 'article 14.1-2 combined' article 12.3, article 6, article 5.1, c) and articles 5.2 and 24.1-2 of the RGPO. It is therefore

serious negligent action (article 83.2 b). Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, surname, mobile phone number) (article 83.2 g). The evident link between

accordance with Article 72(1)(a) LOPDGDD and falls under the criteria defined in article 83(5)(a) GDPR where a company can be fined up to €2 million, or in

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 policy

principle to which Article 6(1) GDPR is linked, and imposed a fine of €2000 relying on Article 58(2) GDPR. The defendant ultimately paid €1200 for the breach

sedeagpd.gob.es 10/14 claimed (article 83.2. a) of the RGPD). - The intentionality or negligence of the infringement (article 83.2. B) of the RGPD). - Basic

or negligence in the infringement (article 83.2 b).Basic personal identifiers (name, surname,address) (article 83.2 g).C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001

messages. Is this a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR? The AEPD held that this behaviour was a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and fined Vodafone €100,000

control authority, are established in article 58.2 of the RGPD. Between they have the power to direct a warning -article 58.2 b) -, the Power to impose an administrative

" Regarding section k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with the provisions

violation of the article6.1. of the RGPD, in relation to article 20 e) of the LOPDGDD, typifiedin article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned GDPR.2. TO appoint D

Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 2 2/10infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in accordance with the provisions of article83.5.b) of the RGPD and b)

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

contravene Articles 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR? The AEPD found that GRUP BC S.L violated Article 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

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

The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. Article 32 of the RGPD "Security of treatment", establishes that: "1. Taking

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)

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

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

accordance with Article 58, paragraph 2, subparagraph b of the General Data Protection Regulation, and an order pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, subparagraph

obligations under Article 21 of the GDPR. Fourthly, EDF breached its obligation to guarantee data security as prescribed in Article 32 of the GDPR. In particular

publication of the press release of 17 June 2020 infringed Article 54(2) GDPR and Article 48(1) and Article 64(3) WOG. This press release described that the DPA

1.: Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter c, Article 6, Article 12 Paragraph 3, Article 51 Paragraph 1, Article 57 Paragraph 1 Letter f, Article 58 Paragraph

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

the type of data) are: Article 9(2)(h) GDPR (necessary for the purposes of preventive or occupational medicine); Article 9(2)(i) GDPR (for reasons of public

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

of Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 14 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR, Article 28 GDPR, Article 32 GDPR and Article 33 GDPR, as well as of Article L. 34-5

violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR, Article 12(6) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. In accordance with Article 58(2)(c) GDPR

protected by article 5 par. 1 item a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR and b) directs a reprimand, according to article 58 par. 2 b) GDPR, to the complained

meaning of Article 22 (1) of the GDPR with regard to [Applicants]. Since Article 13, paragraph 2, heading and under f, Article 14, paragraph 2, heading and

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

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

that regard on that article 2.1) GDPR read in conjunction with recital 15 of the GDPR, although an exclusion from the scope of the GDPR provides for files

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

not necessarily meet the requirements of Article 32 GDPR. To what extent are the provisions in Article 32 GDPR obligatory and thus, not subject to the preferences

legislative measure that serves one of the objectives listed in Article 23, namely Article 23(1)(i) GDPR. After all, the Court of first instance notes, “compliance

principles are found under Article 5(1)(a) and Article 5(2) GDPR respectively]. The Spanish DPA even made reference to Recital 40 GDPR on the legality of processing

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

woman Previous address: S***strasse 2-4/35 2***L*** The leave compartment is to be set up at: N***stelle 2*** F***gasse 7 2***L*** The incoming shipments are

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

which Articles 2 (f) and 5 (3) of Directive 2002/58, read in conjunction with Article 2 (h) of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679 4 Article 6 (11) and

58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32 sec. 1 and 2, as well

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

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

erasure under Article 17 GDPR. Moreover, the Court found that the plaintiff did not justify his reliance on Article 18 GDPR. As for Article 21 GDPR, the Court

supervisory authorities (Article 58(2) DSGVO), in particular the fines to be imposed (Article 58(2)(i) DSGVO), for which Article 83 DSGVO contains a detailed

Therefore, given that Article 6(1), Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(1)(c), and Article 14 GDPR were infringed in connection to Article 5(1)(b), the

Thus, the AEPD understood that the defendant has infringed Article 7 of the GDPR and Article 6(3) of the Spanish Law on Data Protection and Digital Rights

accordance with Article 31 of the GDPR, Article 31, due to the security breach , GDPR. According to Article 83 Paragraph 4 Letter a of the GDPR, these two provisions

2022, Article 82 GDPR, paragraph 20; Nemitz, in: Ehmann/Selmayr, GDPR, 2nd edition 2018, Article 82, paragraph 20; Gola/Piltz, in: Gola/Heckmann, GDPR/ BDSG

paragraph of Article 2, ZKme-1 (point a) of the third paragraph of Article 5, the first paragraph of Article 139, the second paragraph of Article 143 of the

accuracy set out in Article 5, paragraph one, letter d of the GDPR? 2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Should Article 16 GDPR be interpreted as

(hereinafter: the GDPR) applies on 25 May 2018 become. The GDPR imposes the same obligation in Article 32, paragraph 1, as it applied under Article 13 6. The UWV

legal basis under Article 9(2) GDPR for sending the medical assessment, which contained health data under Article 14 GDPR#15Article 4(15) GDPR, to the municipality

and Article 5, Chapter IV and Article 83. The relevant obligations 2.5. Chapter 1 GDPR sets out the general provisions. Article 5 of Chapter I GDPR sets

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

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

August 2, 2017 is attached (THE CLIENT) and JOKER PREMIUM INVEX, S.L. (THE SUPPLIER). Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the first stipulation and section 2.2 of the

art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1 and 2 and article. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) in connection with art. 33 paragraph 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 and 2 of the Regulation

Protection Regulation) Article 5, paragraph 1, subparagraph c, Article 25, Article 58, paragraph 2, subparagraph d, and Article 87, Section 29, subsection

understood as references to the GDPR, in accordance with Article 94 of the latter. 34. Similarly, it follows from recital 173 of the GDPR that this text explicitly

that the letter in question referred to Article 58(1)(a) of the GDPR and Article 5:16 in conjunction with Article 5:17 of the Awb does not make this any

tickets, can be based on the authorization in point 5. Article 9 Act no. 90/2018 and Article 6 of the GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

document. Concerning the first question, the DPA held that under Article 2(2)(d) GDPR, the Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data

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

processing of personal data relating to him/her on the basis of Article 6(1)(e) or (f) of Article 6(1), including profiling on the basis of those provisions