Search results

to the public, violating Article 24 GDPR. The decision discusses as well, the relationship between directive 95/46/EC and GDPR. The DPA highlighted that

of the Spanish Agency of Data Protection, as laid down in Article 56(2) inin relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of European Parliament

with article 4.1 of the RGPD, is a personal data. nal and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said regulation. In article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

decision, or, in the case of transfers pursuant to Article 46 or 47 or the second subparagraph of Article 49(1), reference to adequate or appropriate safeguards

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

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

intervention Article 58 (2) (i) and Article 83 (2) state that the IMY has the power to impose administrative penalty fees in accordance with Article 83. the

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

foundation was responsible for violating Article 33 GDPR, and issued it with a warning pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. The AEPD did not find the former Secretary

has its legal basis under Article 6(1)(f) The Disputes Chamber proceeds to dismiss the complaint in accordance with article 95 , § 1, 3° WOG, giving three

movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), hereinafter GDPR; Having regard to the law of 3 December 2017

[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

violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/7 FIFTH: On

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 permission

persons pursuant to Article 34(1) GDPR. The Danish DPA found that Intervare did not go through with a proper assessment pursuant to Article 34(1), as it had

following the mandatory legal requirements to do so, violating Article 6(1) and Article 13 GDPR. A resident has installed, without the authorization of the

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

pursuant to Article 17(2) DPA Act. 9. Moreover, as regards the one-stop-shop mechanism, Article 56 GDPR states: "Without prejudice to Article 55, the supervisory

exclusively private or domestic activity, which is lawful, based on the 2.2.c, GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The decision

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

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

relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, in its article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures" establishes that: "2. In accordance with

Holding for questions referred. Facts pending decision. Are Article 57(1)(a) and (f) and Article 58(2)(a) to (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

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

Art. 58 sec. 2 lit. b) and e), in connection with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 33 paragraph

connection with Article 5 paragraph 1 point c, Article 9 paragraph 1, Article 58 paragraph 2 point f, point g and point i and with Article 83 paragraph 2 and 3,

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

constitute personal data under Article 4(1) GDPR? If so, do they qualify as special categories of personal data under Article 9 GDPR? Is the defendant obliged

The interpretation of article 13 of the Wbp is no different from that of article 32 of the GDPR, described in paragraphs 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. Also in the period

violation of Article 5, Article 6, and Article 25 GDPR. It ordered the controller to comply with the data subject's erasure request pursuant to Article 17(1)(d)

AEPD found that the Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSC-PSOE) violated Article 21 GDPR due to unsolicited political propaganda sent after the data subject

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

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

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

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

wearing a protective mask did not consitute personal data according to Article 4(1) GDPR because it was impossible for the average person to identify the individual

that a valid legal basis would be either Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, or Article 6(1)(d) GDPR or Article 9(2)(b) GDPR. The Data protection authority (the UOOU)

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

of the Spanish Agency of Data Protection, as laid down in Article 56(2) in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

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

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

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

to take a decision in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(2) in conjunction with Article 57(1)(f) both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

accordance with provided for in article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning

Court's request for preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) GDPR is published. The data subject filed a complaint with the Austrian

violates the GDPR or paragraph one or Article 2 1st part. (2) The complaint must contain: 1. the name of the right deemed to have been violated, 2. to the extent

the Spanish Agency of Data Protection, as laid down in Article 56(2) in in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of European Parliament

decide on this matter, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(2) in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

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

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

person, using Article 15 as their basis. The Slovenian DPA (IP) was asked for an opinion concerning the scope of GDPR Article 15. Within the GDPR, an individual

controller €80,000: €50,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €30,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. The original fine of €80,000 was reduced

the following: Article 66 GDPR gives the possibility for a procedure of urgency and from this article (and Article 66 and Article 62 GDPR), the European

the complainant on 06/04/2019 12:46:47 (Peninsular time). LEGAL FOUNDATIONS I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognises to each control

for the violation of Article 6 GDPR and € 4 000 for the violation of article 13, under the power conferred by Article 83(5) GDPR. Share your comments here

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

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

the existence or absence of a decision in accordance with Article 46, Article 47 or Article 49 (1). in the case of the transmission referred to in the

as by Article 28(2) and (3) The obligation to adopt technical and organizational measures to ensure the security of the processing as by Article 32. The

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

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

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

in Article 9 of Directive 95/46 / EC are not applicable to the former Article 9 of Directive 95/46 / EC - the counterpart provision of now Article 85 GDPR

information under Article 13 GDPR is illegal. Consequently, the APED decided to issue a fine of €1.500 for the violation of Article 13 GDPR. Share your comments

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

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

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

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

entrepreneur. The DPA found that the controller violated Article 31 GDPR and Article 58(1)(e) GDPR and issued a warning to the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur

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, §

the processing of personal data is not covered by the GDPR, according to Article 2(2)(c) of the GDPR. However, the DPA concluded that Orienteringsret.dk

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

under Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. The Authority ordered the Health Service to carry out a DPIA and bring its processing operations in line with the GDPR within

event of an infraction of the precepts of the GDPR. Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “2 Each supervisory authority shall have all of the

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 the aforementioned

in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/12 2016/679

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

information in accordance with Art. 15 (1) half-sentence 2 GDPR. According to Art. 4 No. 2 GDPR, processing also includes in particular the collection,

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

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

portability of the data; (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

appeal judges Articles 2.1, 4 2), 5.1 c) and 57.1 a), f) and h) GDPR, to the extent necessary read in conjunction with Article 288(2) TFEU and Articles 4

basis under Article 6(1) GDPR. In light of this, the DPA issued a fine of €70,000 to másLUZ Energía (SIE) by virtue of Article 83(5) GDPR for unlawful

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

grievances. 1.7 Subsequently a judgment has been given. 2Features 2.1 In the order under 2.1 to 2.10 the District Court established the facts on which it

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

not under a legal obligation to process these data. Article 29 of the Croatian Labour Act and Article 5(4) of the Labour Law Rulebook (Official Gazette,

the principles of lawfulness and fairness of Article 5 GDPR and without a legal basis under Article 6 GDPR. A bank (the controller) organized prize games

activities further violated Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR. Accordingly, the DPA, in accordance with its powers under Article 58 (2) GDPR, imposed an administrative

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

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

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

Privacy Ordinance Article 83 no. 2 letters a to k. to highlight factors that are to be given special weight. With reference to Article 83 no. 2 letter a «The

the Spanish Agency of Data Protection, as laid down in Article 56(2) in in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of European Parliament

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR; 2. Did not provide the complainant with enough information prior to the processing, in violation of Article 13 GDPR; 3. Processed

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

information. Article 7 of said act, however, states that public figures cannot expect the same level of protection as other citizens. Article 8 also states

opening clauses in Article 80(1) and (2) GDPR ("closed shop"). In this case, consumer rights associations would be barred from bringing GDPR class actions unless

dissuasive" as per Article 83(1). In addition to a breach of Article 6(1)(f), the lack of organisational measures pursuant to Article 5(2) was weighted when

requirements of Article 6(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR, which cannot be superseded by relying on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR? Is Article 5(1)(c) GDPR (data

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 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

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

mandatory by article 13.2.a) of the GDPR. 2.2 Regarding the exercise of their rights by the persons concerned 67 53. In the context of objective 2, the head

art. 58, paragraph 5, of the Code. 2, of the Regulations, concerning the alleged violations of the 2-ter, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, of the Code and of Art. 6

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:

rating without a legal basis under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and for not adhering to the accountability principle as per Article 5(2). The DPA also requires that

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

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

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

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

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

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

obligation (Article 4:32 § 1 Wft). Therefore, Article 6(1)(c) GDPR was relevant. However, the Court highlighted that the phrase "at least on" in Article 6(1)

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

of Enna"; - the processing would also find its legal basis in Article 9(2)(g) and Article 2(6)(u) of the Code: 'tasks of the national health service and

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

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

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)

for an infringement of article 14 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction, in in relation to article 74.a) of the LOPDGDD.

accordance with article 4.1 of the GDPR, is data personnel and their protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In article 4.2 The GDPR defines

so that the violation is still continues. 2. Legal framework Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1, of the GDPR, this Regulation applies to all or part 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

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

subjects contained in the mortgage deed without a legal basis under Article 6 GDPR and ordered the controller to pay the data subjects €127.82 Euro (250

controller HRK 2.15 million (approximately €283,000). It held that the controller violated Articles 25(1), 32(1)(b), 32(1)(d) and 32(2) GDPR by not taking

listed in Article 2(3) of that directive and Article 2(2) of that regulation, apply. 62 In particular, it should be noted that Article 9 of the GDPR and Article

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

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,

representative within 14 days the amount of EUR 2.500,-- plus 4% interest since 2.3.2019 is hereby rejected. 2. the plaintiff is obliged to reimburse the defendant

data 9 2.1.1 Factual findings 9 2.1.2Legal assessment 9 2.2 Controller and processor(s) 10 2.2.1 Factual findings 10 2.2.2Legal assessment 12 2.3Security

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

assessment on the wording of Article 85 GDPR, The Norwegian Constitution § 100, The European Convention of Human Rights Article 10, and the International

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 that

para 11 CFR Art11 para 1 ECHR Art10 para 1 GDPR Art4 no 2 GDPR Art4 no 7 GDPR Art85 para 1 GDPR Art85 para 2 Text GZ: DSB-D123.768/0004-DSB/2019 of 18.12

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

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

violation of Article 5(2) GDPR. Further proceedings regarding potential other violations of the GDPR were provisionally terminated pursuant to § 46 of the German

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

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

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

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)

the lack of a privacy and cookie policy on a website infringe Article 13 GDPR and Article 22(2) LSSI? The AEPD decided to impose a fine to the clinic: € 2000

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 and of

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

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the RGPD; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. C/ Jorge Juan

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

number). However, the DPA concluded that the controller did not violate Article 15(2) GDPR by asking for more information to identify the data subject when the

of § 6 para 3 KSchG, as it refers to the inadmissible clauses 1.2.3 and 1.2.6 [= clauses 2 and 3 above; note]. The inadmissibility of the provisions to which

which led to a (sensitive) data breach, in violation of Article 32(1) and Article 32(2) GDPR In Oktober 2019, a malicious third party gained unauthorized

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

not complied with Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 and 2, Article 33, para. Article 34 (3) (d) 1 and 2, and Article 5, para. 1, letter

(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

allow a person to be unequivocally identified. Therefore, following Article 2(1) GDPR, the AEPD concluded that there was no processing of data, neither automated

norm therefore by article 19 of the LOPD as business data. We consider relevant the legal basis by which, according to the article Article 65 of the LOPD

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

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

provided for in Article 83 of the PGRD and having regard to the assessment factors listed in Article 83.2. of the RGPD, a reprimand (Article 100 § 1, 5° LCA)

lawfulness under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR ("does the employer have legitimate interests in monitoring quarantine compliance?") or Article 9(2) GDPR ("quarantine

legal basis for their processing in article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However, according to article 17(1)(c) and article 21(1) GDPR, upon receiving an erasure request

controller under the GDPR. The data controller did not process personal data with an appropriate level of security, as required by article 32, read in conjunction

fine, the criteria specified in the same Article 83." 112. Under Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20(III) of the Data Protection Act: "1

of Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) Article 5, paragraph 1, subparagraph c, Article 25, Article 58, paragraph 2, subparagraph d

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

life insurance company had breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR as its as its practice was to process

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

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)]; -

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

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

provisions of Article 5.1 of the AVG, but concerns the entire AVG. 31. The aforementioned follows from the merger of Article 5.2 of the AVG and Article 24.1 of

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

missions, applying all the exclusions provided for in article 2 of the GDPR. ”, Resulting from its article 3 under the heading“ National control authority ”that“The

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. SECOND:

§ 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

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

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

found that there had been a “personal data breach” pursuant to Article 4 (12) of the GDPR as a result of the publication on the municipal website regarding

may be recorded of the data processing, in violation of Article 13 and Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR. The complainant lodged a complaint with the AEPD about the

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

complained of, by virtue of the powers established in Article 58.2 of the RGPD and in Articles 47, 64.2 and 68.1 of the Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5,

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

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

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

objection for data processing under Article 21 GDPR and the principle of liability under Article 2(4) GDPR and Article 24 GDPR. The complainant, the data subject

compliant with data protection rules, on the basis of Article 6(2) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. Then, the Datatilsynet focused on two specific

on the GEOPORTAL2 was not in line with the principle of lawfulness in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as none of the conditions of Article 6 GDPR were satisfied.

to the GDPR, imposed a fine in the amount of € 10.000 and ordered Cavauto srl. to communicate the proposed changes in view of compliance with GDPR. The Italian

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

Belgian DPA used Article 58(2)(c) GDPR to order a controller to comply with an erasure request of a data subject pursuant to Article 17 GDPR after it failed

60 of the GDPR does not apply the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 para. 1, 2 para. 1 and 3 para. 2 GDPR and 13 para

2019, BVwerG 6 C 2.18 "It follows that the opening clauses of Article 6.2 and 6.3 GDPR for processing operations under Article 6.1(1)(e) GDPR do not cover

damages were not fully presented. Article 82 GDPR presupposes damage. The asserted mere breach of the provisions of the GDPR is not sufficient for a claim

provisions of article 39 bis 2 of the LSSI so that withinONE MONTH from the notification of this resolution:2.1. COMPLIES with the provisions of article 21.1 of

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

and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC EC (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR) for violation of Art. 5, § 1, b. "c" of the GDPR - the principle of data

intervention Article 58 (2) (i) and Article 83 (2) state that the IMY has the power to impose administrative penalty fees in accordance with Article 83. the

established by the GDPR.The principle of liability set out in Article 5.2 of the GDPR and developed in Article 24 are at the heart of the GDPR and reflect the

constitute a violation of Article 5 (1) (f) of the RGPD? For infringing Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 72(1)(a) LOPDGDD, the Spanish

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

having appointed a data protection officer, thus breaching Article 37 GDPR. After the GDPR came into force, the Burgos city Council did not appoint a DPO

obligation imposed on public authorities under Article 37(1) GDPR. This obligation is also within Article 34(1) and (3) of the Spanish data protection law

data within the meaning of Article 4, opening words and (1) of the AVG. Based on Article 2, paragraph 1 and Article 3, paragraph 2, of the AVG, the AVG applies

the conditions laid down in Article 7 GDPR. Additionally, in this case, the IP also reiterated the provisions of Article 8 GDPR on conditions applicable to

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

signifiesidentified catives (article 83.2 b) Basic personal identifiers -image- are affected (art 83.2g)VOn the other hand, article 83.7 of the RGPD provides

personal data under Article 9 GDPR. The processing of such data is prohibited unless one of the exceptions referred to in Article 9(2) GDPR applies. In the

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

material scope of application of the AVG (Article 2.1. AVG). None of the 4 grounds for exception under article 2.2. AVG apply here. As the Defendant does

device (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

on the merits in accordance with Article 98 et seq. DPAA, to: - pursuant to Article 58.2(c) of the GDPR and Article 95(1)(5) of the DPAA , to order the

the privacy policy. Thus, Article 21(1) LSSI has not been complied with, as there is no consent according to Articles 6 and 7 GDPR. Serious infringements

consequent infringement of the data minimisation principle as per Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The controller's video surveillance system is oriented toward 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)

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)). •

violation of data minimisation, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. No fines can be imposed against the controller and Article 83(5) GDPR can therefore not be imposed.

consequences of said treatment for the interested party. " Article 12.2.3 and .4 of the RGPD indicates: "2.The data controller will facilitate the interested party

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

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

according to Art 15 Paragraph 1 GDPR, such as the origin of the data. In accordance with Art 15 (4) GDPR and Recital 63 GDPR, the information must be restricted

on legitimate interests according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and that Ziggo had to comply with Article 6(4)(d) GDPR. The Court found that DFW had a legitimate

scalethe by the number of clients it has (article 83.2 a)Basic personal identifiers are affected (article 83.2 g)Therefore, in accordance with the applicable

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

(listed in Article 57 of the GDPR) including that of dealing with complaints (article 57.1.f) of the GDPR) as well as a number of powers (article 58 of the

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

virtue of the powers that Article 58.2 of the RGPD grants to each control authority, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 47 of Organic Law 3/2018

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

legitimate basis a violation of GDPR? The Spanish DPA considered that the processing of personal data was in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR, as the worker had processed

provided for in Article 18 GDPR. As explained by the Court, Article 18(1) GDPR, in particular in paragraph (d), is linked to Article 21(1) GDPR, which guarantees

information in accordance with Article 85(2) GDPR. The Court held that the provisions on the security of processing in Article 32 GDPR are not intended to limit

health, culture, and emotional state. This combined with the fact that Article 4(2) GDPR includes "transmission" and "dissemination" in the definition of processing

index of search the following urls: 1. *** URL.1 2. *** URL.2 3. *** URL.3 SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of the LOPDGDD, which has provided for a

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

basis for the dispute is Article 58 (2) (d) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation no and to repeal RL 95/46 / EG (OJ L 119) in conjunction

publication of the judgment breach the GDPR? The AEPD held that the respondent’s actions violated the GDPR Article 5(1)(a) requirement that processing must

possible non-compliance with the data minimisation principle, as per Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The decision is the consequence of a complaint submitted by a Spanish

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

legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, they must still comply with data protection principles under Article 5 GDPR. In Croatia, many employers

fine on the defendant and stated he has to comply with Article 5(1)(c) and Article 83(2)(a)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

with Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Thus, the Danish DPA held that the processing was also not following the principles of Article 5(1)

57(1)(a), Article 83(1)-(2) and Article 83(6) in connection with Article 58(2)(e) and (i) of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

procedure to the claimed, by thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of theRGPD. FIFTH: Consulted the database of this

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

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)

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

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

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

sanction to the party claimed for the violation of Article 13 of the GDPR typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. The sanction that must be imposed is an administrative

Constitution, Article 19 TFEU and Article 47 CFR. As Mr A's mandate and termination had not been assessed in the light of the provisions of the GDPR, the Supreme

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