Search results

in Section 2 (2) defined in the General Data Protection Regulation in relation to may apply legal consequences. According to Article 58 (2) of the General

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

and Article of 11Law No. 3471/2006, in accordance with Article 13(58i2) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 83(1)(a) of the GDPR. 5 of the GDPR, and

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

Pursuant to Article 83 (2), (5) and (7) of the General Data Protection Regulation: “[...] administrative fines in accordance with Article 58 (2) (a) to (h)

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

for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. The AEPD considered that the fine was proportional, since the GDPR establishes that fines

the supervisory authority with pursuant to article 58 (2), or failure to provide access in breach of article 58, Paragraph 1." Organic Law 3/2018, on Protection

and mitigate its effects (article 83.2.f, of the RGPD) -Basic personal identifiers (name, surname, address, D.N.I.) (article 83.2 g). Therefore, in accordance

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

order issued by the Data Inspectorate pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 2 (e). The following is a detailed examination of the

with regard to the applications under 2 a), 2 b) and 2 c) and partially with regard to the application under 2 d), so that the remainder of the regional

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

in article 58.2 of the GDPR. Between They have the power to impose an administrative fine in accordance with the article 83 of the RGPD -article 58.2 i)-

of article 6.1. of the RGPD typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 2. APPOINT D. C.C.C. as instructor. and as secretary to Mrs. D.D.D

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

only warned the plaintiff pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) of the DSGVO, but also ordered, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) of the DSGVO, that the operation of

defendant) for the infringement of the accuracy principle, as per Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR. The decision is the consequence of a complaint submitted by another

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

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

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:

provisions of Article 58 (2) (i) of the GDPR, each supervisory authority has, inter alia, the power to impose an administrative fine under Article 83, depending

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

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:

technical nature –G. D.1, G.D.2, G.D.3 – or human when a manual call is made –G.D.4, G.E.7-). In the other cases it states the following: G.D.5-G.D.6: In these

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

breaching Article 12(3) GDPR, since it failed to notify the data subject that her erasure request was satisfied, as well as Article 24(1) GDPR, given that

of the measures referred to points (a) to (h) of Article 58(2) and Article 58(2)(a) to (h) paragraph 2(j). When deciding on the imposition of administrative

from the GDPR under Article 2(2) of the GDPR. 165. Article 2(2) of the GDPR outlines certain types of processing of personal data to which the GDPR does not

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

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

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

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

email received the day before sent by D. D.D.D., responsible for occupational hazards, to the head of the claimant, D.C.C., with a copy to her, with which

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

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

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

the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Section 3 of the Finnish Act on the Protection

[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

..................... .14 2.2.1 Applicable regulations, etc. ................................................... ...14 2.2.2 The Privacy Protection Authority's

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

criteria stated in Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in accordance with Article 83(2) GDPR and Article 76 LOPDGDD the following

25/31 Order, pursuant to Article 58 (2) d) of the GDPR, the Controlled being brought into compliance with Article 12 (1) of the GDPR by making the following

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

event of a violation of the precepts of the RGPD. Article 58.2 of the GDPR provides the following: “2 Each supervisory authority will have all of the following

APPEAR: A D.D.D., for the violation of article 6 of the RGPD typified in article 83.5.a). REQUIRE: A D.D.D., in accordance with the provisions of article 58.2

in article 58.2 of the GDPR. Between They have the power to impose an administrative fine in accordance with the article 83 of the RGPD -article 58.2 i)-

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

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

sanction Vodafone in accordance with Article 83(5)(e) GDPR, for the non-compliance with an order pursuant to Article 58(1) GDPR. For this infringement, the AEPD

60 days of receipt of this measure (art. 58, par. 2, letter d) Regulations); ORDER pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, letter i) of the Regulations, Mapei S.p

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

of the provision of Article 58(1) of the GGC, a fine in accordance with the provisions of Article 58(1) of the GGC. 2(i) of the GDPR, the effective, proportionate

with the data protection laws, so, considering that the law [Article 58(2) and Whereas 148 GDPR] also makes possible for the supervisory authorities to decide

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

specified period (art. 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

BACKGROUND FIRST: Ms. A.A.A., in the name and representation of D. B.B.B., D. C.C.C., D. D.D.D. and D.E.E.E. (hereinafter, the claimant), on March 16, 2022, filed

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

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

Móviles, S.A, by virtue of the powers established in Article 58.2 of the RGPD and in Articles 47, 64.2 and 68.1 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on Personal

imposed a fine of €60000 for the violating Article 5(1)(d) GDPR and €30000 for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in

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), the

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

moreover, without informing them of their rights under Article 13 of the GDPR. Article 58 of the GDPR, Powers, states: "Each supervisory authority shall have

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

significant negligent action (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) and that basic personal identifiers were affected (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The economic volume of the

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

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

" 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

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. BBB as

powers 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

not constituting an infringement of article 5.1.c) of the GDPR. Likewise, in accordance with article 58.2.d) of the GDPR, the defendant was ordered to Proceed

could not be considered appropriate in accordance with Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR regarding the online appointment booking system. As a result

investigation regarding the violation of Article 15(1)(b) and (c). In accordance with Article 58(2) and Article 83(2), the DPA fined Company A €1,500. Since

for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 1. APPOINT Mr. D.D.D. as instructor. and as secretary

subjects, according to Article 33(1) GDPR and Article 34(1) GDPR? The PUODO held that the insurance company infringed the GDPR provisions, failing to notify

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

CLIENTES, SAU with NIF A95758389, fromin accordance with the provisions of article 58.2 d) of the RGPD, so that within tendays proceed to order the data controller

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

art. 58, par. 2, of the RGPD. 6. Adoption of the injunction order for the application of the pecuniary administrative sanction (articles 58, par. 2, letter

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

44 to 49; (d) in accordance with Article IX; (e) failure to comply with an instruction of a supervisory authority pursuant to Article 58 (2) or a request

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

the principle of confidentiality, namely Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, and thus, it did not comply with Article 5(2) GDPR referred as the principle of "proactive

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 combined provisions of article 32, paragraph 1, subparagraphs b) and d) and article 83, paragraph 4, al.a), of the GDPR, with a fine of € 0.00 to €

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

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

regard to Article 83 (2) (k) of the GDPR, Article 76 of the GDPR, ‘Sanctions and remedial measures’, provides: ‘2. In accordance with Article 83 (2) (k) of

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 is

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

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

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

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

right of rectification of Article 16 GDPR and Article 14 of LOPDGDD, the national data protection law, the DPA stated that Article 12(4) LOPDGDD obliges the

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

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

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

2016/679 and article 11toun.3471 / 2006, according to article 58par.2 of the GCP in in combination with article 83 par. 5 of the GCC, and with article 21 par

withdrawal of consent under Article 7(3) GDPR. The Authority also considers the existence of a deletion request under Article 17 GDPR. The AEPD concludes that

sanction and the accessory sanctions (articles 58, paragraph 2, letter i and 83 of the Regulations; article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code). Pursuant to art

with the provisions of article 58.2.i) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 9 of the RGPD, typified in the article 83.5 of the RGPD and for

provisions: (a) Articles 55 (1), 56 (2), 57 (1) (a) and 58 (2) (d) of General Regulation (EU) 2016/679; and (b) of article 19 (5) of Law 125 (I) / 2018, 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

conjuncture with Articles 58(1)(a), 58(1)(e) and 58(2)(i) GDPR. It therefore imposed a €2000 fine on the defendant and applied corrective measures to get SC C&V

the infringement. In relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its article Article 76, “Sanctions and corrective measures”, establishes

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

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

” 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

notice in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and an order in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) to bring the processing

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)

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

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

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

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

as per Article 25 GDPR and the liability principle of 5(2) GDPR. The DPA finally found out that the provision on impact assessment, as per Article 35 GDPR

of article 32.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/9 FIFTH:

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

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

well as Art. 6 para. 1 of the GDPR. To 2): c) Article 50b (2) DSG 2000 (for the period prior to 25 May 2018) (d) Article 13(3) DSG (for the period from

by the alleged violation of Article 5.1(f) of the GDPR, Article 5.1(b) of the GDPR, as set out in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FOURTH: On 10 June 2020, the

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

subsequent violations of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and of the principle of accountability as foreseen in Article 5(2) GDPR read in conjunction

violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.4 of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT C.C.C. as instructor. and, as secretary, to D.D.D., indicating

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

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

in this case must be qualified as the EU controller as referred to in Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46. 40 The fact that the Administrator of a Fan Page

connection with parking permits; and (2) whether an order must be made to the controller in accordance with Article 58 (2) (d) of the General Data Protection

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

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

instruction of this expe-tooth.WHAT: in accordance with article 58.2 of the RGPD, in relation to article 43.1of the LSSI, the corrective measure that could

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

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

I By virtue of the powers conferred on each of the parties by Article 58(2) of the GDPR authority, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 47

claimed entity,by virtue of the powers established in article 58.2 of the RGPD and in articles47, 64.2 and 68.1 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on Data

2 of the GDPR, and with the provisions of article 76 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to section k) of the aforementioned article 83.2 GDPR. Article 83.2 of

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

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)

applicability of Article 2 (2) point d) GDPR, which reads as follows:“2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:(…)(d) by the competent

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

right to portability of the data; d) when the treatment is based on article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or article 9, section 2, letter a), the existence of

employees. The DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Following a visit to the premises of two public bodies (the

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

containing personal data. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each control authority, and as established

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

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

as well as the presentation d claim before the DGSFP and before this body for the same facts (article 83.2, a) of the GDPR). . - The activity of the claimed

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

according to Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and to maintain a record of the processing activities under its responsibility according to Article 30(1) GDPR

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

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

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

subsection 2 point 8, § 58 subsection 1, § 10 of the Personal Data Protection Act (IKS) and Article 58 paragraph 1 point d and paragraph 2 of the General

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)

relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, “Sanctions and corrective measures”, establishes that: “2. According to the

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

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

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

particular case". According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the measure provided for in article 58.2.d) of the aforementioned Regulation is compatible

other hand, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned article 58.2 d) of the RGPD, according to which each supervisory authority may 'order

parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD). The balance of the circumstances contemplated in article 83.2 of the

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

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

of measures, according to the aforementioned article 58.2 d) of the RGPD. c).- Violation of article 22.2 of the LSSI, due to the deficiencies detected

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

applicable pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. i), and 83, par. 4, of the Regulation. 5. Corrective measures (art. 58, par. 2, letter d), of the Regulation).

the GDPR. Would judge otherwiseindeed contradict :o the wording of Article L2.2 in conjunction with Article 2.f) of the ePrivacy Directive,o Article 8 of

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

General Data Protection Regulation Article 5(1)(a), (b) and (c). Article 7 Article 9 Article 25 paragraph 2 Article 58 Article 83 Data Protection Act Section

valid consent under Article 4(11) GDPR and Article 6(1) LOPDGDD (National data protection law aimed at the implementation of the GDPR). In both articles

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)

5, 6, 10, 12 and 25 of the Data Protection Regulation. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (d) of the Data Protection Regulation, the controller shall order the

the data subject objects to the processing in accordance with Article 21(2);'. Article 17.1(d) AVG "1. The data subject shall have the right to obtain from

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

for the highest amount . "Article 58.2 b) of the RGPD indicates the possibility of sanctioning withwarning, and section 2 d) establishes that each supervisory

Corrective measures (Article 58, par. 2, letter d), of the Regulation) With regard to the security measures implemented to date, taking into account the

22; " Article 83.7 of the RGPD indicates: “Without prejudice to the corrective powers of the control authorities by virtue of the Article 58 (2), each

NIF.1, for the alleged violation of article 5.1.a) of the RGPD, in accordance with Article 83.5.a) and 58.2.b) and d) of the aforementioned RGPD. " No allegations

of the GDPR, when proceed, in a certain way and within a specified period -article 58. 2 d) -. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2 of the

statute of limitations, in Article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD. V Article 58.2 of the GPRS, under the heading "Powers", states that: "2 Each supervisory authority

I By virtue of the powers that Article 58.2 of the RGPD grants to each control authority, and as established in Article 47 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December

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

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

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, are established in article 58.2 of the RGPD. In-Among them are the power to sanction with warning -article 58.2 b) -,C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd

circumstances of the specific case (Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i) of the Regulation). 4. Injunction order. Pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. i) of the Regulations

to whom the personal data was disclosed pursuant to article 17 paragraph 2 and article 19, [...]". 2.2 According to the Guidelines 5/2020 of the ESPD regarding

processing special categories of data, cf. Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d), Article 24 and Article 35, cf. Article 5. In May 2019, a municipality reported

the right to data 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

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

without a legal basis, cf. Article 6 (1) (f) of the Privacy Regulation. 2. Pursuant to the Privacy Ordinance art. 58 no. 2 letter d is imposed on Aquateknikk

is issued pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 41 (2) (d) of the Data Protection Act. Paragraph 2 (5) shall be punishable

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

" 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

stop. Therefore, Mr D lodged a second complaint alleging the ongoing violation of Article 6 GDPR. The AEPD finds the violation of Article 6 quite apparent

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

sedeagpd.gob.es 3/8 (…) " III Sections b), d) and i) of article 58.2 of the RGPD provide the following: “2 Each supervisory authority shall have all the

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

this regulation in accordance with Article 57 (1) (a) GDPR and which has the powers in accordance with Article 58 GDPR. For this reason alone, there was

the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €30,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. According to the national legislation (Article 76(2)(b) LOPDGDDon

Law", which is a requirement of Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Therefore, the controller could not rely on Article 9(2)(j) GDPR for its processing. Third, the DPA

basis for the processing (Article 21(1) GDPR). Finally, the DPA fined the controller €12,000 for a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR due to the lack of a valid

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

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

information”, article 83.2 f) of the GDPR. (IV) "The non-existence of benefits obtained through the infringement", article 83.2 k) of the GDPR and 76.2 c) of the

Protection is competent to initiate this procedure. Sections 1) and 2) of article 58 of the RGPD, list, respectively, the investigative and corrective powers

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

breach of the principles and guarantees set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679; V Article 58 (2) GDPR reads: ‘Each supervisory authority shall have

other remedy provided for in Art. 58 sec. 2 of Regulation 2016/679, and in particular stopping at an admonition (Article 58 (2) (b)), would not be proportional

paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, letter b) of the Regulation; 9, paragraphs 1, 2, 4, of the Regulation, Articles 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3 and 2-septies, paragraph

(Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 of the Regulation; Article 166(7) of the Code). Pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 of the Regulation and Article 166(7) 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

issued by virtue of the power conferred by Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is a machine

(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

provisions of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, it allows setting a penalty of 2,000 euros (two thousand euros). V Measures Article 58.2 of the GDPR establishes

organizational measures implemented by him pursuant to art. 25 and 32 (Article 83 (2 ) (d) of Regulation 2016/679); The breach found was related to the lack

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

expressed in Article 5 (1 ) (a)) f, and reflected in the obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1), Article 32 (1 ) (b ) and (d) and Article 32 (2)

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

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 33 of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD

considered a violation pursuant to Article 72(1)(m) of the LOPDGDD, which would be sanctioned according to Article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share

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

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

Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter f, for failure to assess protests, cf. Article 21, and for lack of information, cf. Article 13. 2. Pursuant to Article 58 (2)

infringement of Article 31 GDPR in conjunction with Article 58(1)(e) GDPR. The AEPD, therefore, agreed to impose a penalty of € 20000 under Article 83(5)(e) GDPR

pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, of the Regulation to have to: - to impose on Reti Televisive Italiane Spa, pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. f), of the

AEPD concluded that the defendant could have breached Article 13 GDPR, Article 7 GDPR and Article 22(2) LSSI: there was no identification of the data controller

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

processing of personal data (83 (2) (k) GDPR); the fact that basic personal identifiers are affected (83 (2) (g) GDPR); the intentionality or negligence

Articles 5 and 6 GDPR? The AEPD held that publishing personal data on Twitter without the consent of the claimant is a violation of Article 6 GDPR, due to the

patient data cf. Article 32 GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and inadequate internal controls cf. Article 24 GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. Østfold Hospital

violation of article 28.2 typified in Article 83.4 a) GDPR. SIXTY THOUSAND EUROS (€60,000) for alleged violation of article 28.3 typified in Article 83.4 a)

to obtain the transfer of data; (d) where processing is based on point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2), that the data subject shall have

Pursuant to Article 2 (2), the General Data Protection Regulation shall apply with the additions indicated therein. Pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the General

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

graduation criteria established in section 2 of said article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 may also

transparency, cf. Article 5(1)(a), and accuracy, cf. Article (5)(1)(d), they hadn't recorded the processing activity as required in Article 30, hadn't conducted

in relation to proceedings under Article 78(1) of the GDPR. The Court notes that Article 58(4) and Article 78 of the GDPR give expression to the right to

to art. 58, par. 2, of the RGPD. 6. Adoption of the injunction order for the application of the pecuniary administrative sanction (art. 58, par. 2, lett

According to Article 83(2) GDPR, administrative fines should be imposed in addition to or instead of the measures referred to in Article 58(2)(a) to (h)

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)

consent, is in violation of Article 17(1)(b) of the GDPR. 8. On the basis of Article 58, Paragraph 2, Point d) of the GDPR, the Authority instructs Customer

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

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

(i) where measures referred to in Article 58(2) have previously been (i) where measures referred to in Article 58(2) have previously been ordered against

council for an infringement of Article 32 GDPR. The AEPD dropped the case due to the time limitations outlined in Article 72 and 73 LOGPD. The access to

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

GDPR in relation to articles 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR and article 7 of Spanish Law LOPDGDD. For this reason, with the power conferred by article 58(2) GDPR,

image ofinstallation)".FOUNDATIONS OF LAWIBy virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each authoritycontrol, and as established in