Search results

as Article 57 (1) (a), Article 58 (2) (e) and (i), Article 83 (1) - (3) and Article 83 (4) (a) in connection with Article 33 (1) and Article 34 (1), (2)

under Article 77 GDPR was very clear and limited in scope. However, the DSB went on to assert a violation of Article 12 GDPR and Article 15(1)(h) GDPR, acting

II.3.3. Regarding the scope of Art. 44 ff GDPR: If the following three requirements are met, there is a transfer and Chapter V (Art. 44 ff) GDPR is applicable

purposes, with the exception of Article 28-32, which still applies. Personal data may be processed under Article 6 and Article 9 for the purpose of fulfilling

provided for in Article 56(1), read in conjunction with Article 56(2), read in conjunction with Article 56(3), read in conjunction with Article 56(4), read

requires both a legal basis under Article 6 of the GDPR, such as compliance with one of the conditions of article 9.2 of the GDPR. The Data controllers must be

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notification of the aforementioned start-up

infringement of Article 32 GDPR. Therefore, the Spanish DPA issued a warning sanction for each violation of Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR. AEPD highlighted

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

violated Article 6 and Article 32 GDPR. The DPA seems to consider the authentication procedure itself as "processing" and therefore Article 32 GDPR applies

LPACAP), for the alleged 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

infringement for violation of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, due to lack of legitimacy in the treatment. Article 6 of the GDPR, under the heading "Lawfulness

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

the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.4 of the RGPD and Article 83.5 of the RGPD. The initiation

and the free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and

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

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

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

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

breached Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for lack of legal basis, Article 21 for lack of considering an objection, Article 13 for lack of information and Article 24 for

this from happening, in violation with Article 24(1), Article 24(2), and Article 25(1) GDPR. According to Article 24(4) of the Finish Data Protection Act

on final judgments did not comply with Article 25(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for

on final judgments did not comply with Article 25(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for

right of freedom of expression and information within the meaning of Article 17(3)(a) GDPR. The controller also stated that there were compelling legitimate

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

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)

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

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

parent's request, thus violating Article 15(1) and (4) GDPR as well as the principle of accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR. The complainant requested

conjunction with Articles 24 and 32 of the GDPR) to choose the appropriate legal basis provided for in Article 6(1) of the GDPR, as well as to be able to demonstrate

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

pursuant to Article 17(1)(d) GDPR since the data was unlawfully processed. The defendant claimed that its activities fall under exception in (Article 85 GDPR)

Supervision: Article 6(1)(f), legitimate interest. For the special category personal data: About diagnosis: Article 6(1)(a), cf. Article 9(2)(a), consent

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

included within the framework of data protection. Therefore, Article 16 GDPR cannot be applied. Article 16 refers to inaccurate personal data, not to the rectification

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

under Article 17(3) GDPR. Two doctors sued a platform for deletion of their basic profile set up on the platform without their consent under Article 17 GDPR

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

the same way. 6. Because the Authority has, based on article 15 par. 8 of Law 4624/2019 in combination with article 58 par. 2 of the GDPR, the authority

prove that the implemented TOMs are appropriate under Article 32 GDPR? 4) Does Article 82(3) GDPR allow the controller to be exempt from liability for damages

accordance with article 11 par.1 Law 3471/2006, as applicable, the prior consent of the data subject, without prejudice to paragraph 3 of the same article, as applicable

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

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 alleged violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and article 32 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 and 83.4 of the GDPR. The initiation agreement

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

fulfilled. 2.3 On the basis of Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR: The processing of personal data is permissible, inter alia, pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit f DSGVO

and on … she submitted another six (6 ) online applications for the following total links: 1. … 2. … 3. … 4. … 5. … 6. … 7. … 8. … 9. … 10. … 11. … 12. …

the documents or files containing their personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR and Article 12 of the ePrivacy Directive. However, there is a right to a

2, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3

their processing, according to with article 21 par. 1 of the GDPR, which is based on article 6 par. 1 item or GDPR. In his reply dated 24-05-2022, the

several paragraphs of Article 83 of the GDPR, as further summarised below. Fining of the ‘gravest infringement’. Article 83(3) GDPR provides that “[i]f a

around the processing of personal data subject to Article 10 GDPR. Pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the Privacy Appeals Board conducted a balancing test

territorial application of the requirements set out in Article 82 of the Data Protection Act is set out in Article 3, paragraph I, of the same Act, which states:

such a fulfilment by Article 12(3) & (4) GDPR. For this reason, an administrative fine of 1000 EUR was imposed (Article 83(5)b GDPR). Share your comments

and 13 GDPR? Is the information provided to data subjects throughout the subscription process in compliance with the provisions of Article 13 GDPR? Does

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

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 gives

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

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 6 subsection 1

violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the

was outdated and was no longer of importance to society. Pursuant to Article 17(1) GDPR, the data subject had requested Google LLC (the controller) to remove

in particular of children was in breach of Article 5, Article 6, Article 8, Article 9, and Article 25 GDPR. Consequently, the DPA urgently imposed upon

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

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

processing under Article 6 GDPR does not relieve the data processor from their responsibility to fulfil the prerequisites that Article 5(1) GDPR sets out. This

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

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

under Article 5 and 6 GDPR and the safeguards under Article 22 GDPR. If a national court were to find that national law is incompatible with Article 22(2)(b)

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

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

|GDPR_Article_3=Article 99 GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_3=Article 99 GDPR |GDPR_Article_4= |GDPR_Article_Link_4= |GDPR_Article_5= |GDPR_Article_Link_5= |GDPR_Article_6=

|GDPR_Article_3=Article 99 GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_3=Article 99 GDPR |GDPR_Article_4= |GDPR_Article_Link_4= |GDPR_Article_5= |GDPR_Article_Link_5= |GDPR_Article_6=

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

judgment, is incomprehensible. 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 6.9 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 The contested consideration of the court from para. 6.9 reads as follows: “For

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

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

analogously, Section 823 (1) and (2) BGB in conjunction with Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR. Claims under data protection law could be asserted by way

decision of the Minister is no longer based on Article 17(3) GDPR. Instead the decision is based on Article 6(4) GDPR. However the Minister did not explain well

personal data in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1) GDPR, Article 12(3) GDPR, Article 12(4) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. As such, the DPA issued a

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

they had exercised their right to object to processing as foreseen in Article 21(3) GDPR. The ANSPDCP confirmed that the complainant had exercised the right

not be employee consent [Article 6(1)(a)], due to the nature of the employer-employee relationship.' 3. Rationale 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 According to Articles

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) GDPR

regarded as an access request under Article 15(1) GDPR. According to Recital 63 GDPR, the right of access under Article 15 GDPR serves data subjects to be informed

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

virtue of Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. Indeed, it further is justified that the task carried out in the public interest under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR does not constitute

prevail (Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f GDPR). In this context, Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. c GDPR in conjunction with the PMG and Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f GDPR relevant: The

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

accordance with article 11 par.1 Law 3471/2006, as applicable, the prior consent of the data subject, without prejudice to paragraph 3 of the same article, as applicable

of Article 4(11). The DPA thus found another violation of Article 6(1)(a). The DPA further held that the controller violated Article 4(11), Article 12(1)

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

minutes 3:11:51 and 3:11:57; The video (2) NUM001, between minutes 3:12:06 and 3:12:28; The video (3) NUM002, between the minutes 3:12:54 and 3:13:04; The

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

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

requirements of Article 9 GDPR. In the DSB held that the processing violated Articles 5, 6 and 9 GDPR: Consent under Articles 6(1)(a), 7 and 9(2)(a) GDPR cannot

market participants. Specifically, these are Sections 17(3), 3(5) ApBetrO, 43 AMG, 11(1) sentence 1 no. 3, no. 7 and no. 11 HWG, and Section 14(2) no. 1 BerufsO

processing on the merits in accordance with Article 98 et seq. WOG, to: - on the basis of Article 58.2.c) GDPR and Article 95, §1, 5° WOG to the controller order

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

applies on violations of Article 13 (and 14) GDPR. The DSB held that § 24(6) DSG also applies on violations of Article 13 and 14 GDPR. A controller may therefore

requirements of Art. 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Letter e GDPR and the requirements of Article 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Letter f GDPR do not apply in favor

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

obligations in accordance with Article 26 of the GDPR. 1.3. Processing of personal data included in the scope of this methodology 1.3.1. Only processing of personal

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

under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The DPA also requires that the company implement internal controls of their credit rating process as per Article 24 GDPR. The

proceedings. 3.6.3. There is no dispute between the parties that the credit registration is based on article 4:32 Wft. This article implements Article 8 of Directive

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 motives

with the precept was 01.12.2020. 3.3. On 1 December 2020, MustamäeApteek OÜ announced compliance with the precept. 3.4. On December 7, 2020, Mustamäe Apteek

- articles 6/2 ° & 3 ° and 32 / I / 2 ° of the Data Protection Act for all contracts; * clause n ° 5 regarding - of article 6/1 °, 2 ° & 3 ° of the Data

based on a legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, so that the principle of lawfulness under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR is violated. This is due to the fact

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

for fraud prevention under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Did the company’s policy breach Article 6 or any other articles of the GDPR? The Garante held that the

12/35 3. Justification 3.1.1. Regarding the purpose limitation findings (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and the lawfulness of processing (Article 6.1 GDPR) 12. In

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

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

personal data. The DPA held that the controller violated Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 15(3) GDPR and held that the controller had to make a decision regarding

Paragraph 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

and held that “A synopsis of the provisions of Article 9(1)(i) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 3(1)(1), (1a) and (2) of the EpiG shows that the

paying profiles. II.4. Article 12(1),(2) and (3), Article 17, Article 19, Article 24(1) and Article 25(1) AVG 63. Article 12 (1) GDPR stipulates that the

the other grounds from Article 6(1) of the GDPR do not apply. For example, according to [applicant], Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR does not apply because

reviewe the security of the data processed by the processor under Article 28(3)(a) and (h) GDPR. For these reasons, the responsibility of the security incident

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

cooperation procedure pursuant to Article 56 of the GDPR” (cited note, p. 6). 3. The outcome of the investigation. 3.1. The processing of personal data

fined Med Life SA for the violations of Article 12(4) GDPR and Article 15(3) GDPR. Med Life SA was fined 9,839.6 RON, equivalent to €2,000 EUR. The DPA

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

1, lett. a) and c); 6, par. 1, lett. c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, lett. b), of the GDPR; as well as art. 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Code (see also

location still covered as a "legitimate interest" in Article 6(1)(f) GDPR? How are penalties under GDPR and the Austrian Data Protection Act ("DSG") to be

mentions a separate legal basis, points a) and f) of Article 6 (1) of the GDPR. Article 6 (1) of the GDPR point a) of the paragraph was expressly referred

complained party, by the alleged infringement of article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. EIGHTH: The agreement to initiate this sanctioning

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

to Article 11 GDPR, the controller was allowed to request additional information to verify the identity of a data subject pursuant to Article 12(6) GDPR

The timeframe can be extended provided that: the duration is no longer than 3 months (ideally); a justification is given; the person agreed to this or at

controller had infringed Article 6(1) GDPR, in addition to violating the principle of data minimisation in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. Concerning the second issue

violating Article 5(1) GDPR Article 6 (1) GDPR Article 6(4) GDPR Article 9 GDPR Article 14 GDPR Article 30 GDPR Article 35 GDPR and Article 36 GDPR. The fine

(possible) fraud. This resulted in a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 8 of the Dutch Personal Data Protection

limitation under Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. 1(b) and the obligation (principle) of accountability under Article 5(1)(b). 2 of the GDPR, that is to say

entity has violated article 6 of the GDPR, for carrying out a processing of personal data without legitimacy. II Article 6.1 of the GDPR establishes the assumptions

result of which ING suffered loss. 3.3 This decision and the grounds on which it was based are contested by [the appellant]. 3.4 The Court of Appeal will first

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

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

Regulation Article 6 No. 1 letter f.6 On the basis of this, we find it clear that Aquateknikk can be fined for violating Article 5 (2) and Article 6 of the

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)

consent Article 6.1.b : Legal basis of contract execution Article 6.1.c : Legal basis of compliance with a legal obligation Article 6.1 .d: Legal basis

the DPA to issue a referral in order to open an ex officio investigation (Article 63(1) of the Law establishing the Belgian DPA). This referral needs to indicate

Privacy Ordinance Article 6 no. 1. In Article 6 no. for the processing of personal data. The relevant basis of treatment in this case is Article 6, paragraph

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

established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " III The documentation in the file provides evidence that the claimed, violated article 6.1 of the

in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) " III The documentation in the file offers clear indications that the claimed violated article 6 of the

appeals to that effect legitimate interest (Article 6.1 f) GDPR). 26. In accordance with Article 6.1 f) GDPR and the case law of the Court of Justice of

held that a lawsuit under Article 79 GDPR regarding the alleged violation of Article 15 GDPR is indeed feasible. Article 79 GDPR is not limited to certain

condition of necessity is maintained under Article 6.1 b) to f) of the GDPR. The article 6.1 of the GDPR replaces Article 7 of the Directive, without the relevant

meant to refer to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR instead (like a similar case by the Cyprian DPA). Since the DPA only referred to Article 6(1) GDPR, and did not specify

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

protection found in Article 5 of the GDPR, and fulfill one of the lawful bases for processing as set out in Article 6 of the GDPR. As the complainants

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

ANSPDCP found that Estee Lauder Romania SRL violated Article 6, 7 and 9 GDPR and imposed a fine of EUR 3.000. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision

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

months after the request was made. According to Article 12(3) GDPR the response has to be the latest within 3 months. The DPA considered that it had no competence

established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " IV The documentation in the file provides evidence that the claimed, violated article 6.1 of the

violation of article 6.1. RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a), and article 31, in relation to article 58.1.e), both of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.e) of

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

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)

accordance with Article L. 6113-7 of the French Public Health Code and the decree of 26 December 2018 comply with Articles 6, 9(3) and 25 GDPR? To reach the

third party, breach Article 6(1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) referred to the principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a)), as well

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

violated Article 6(1)GDPR, for processing personal data without a legal basis. Hence, the AEPD decided to fine Telefónica for the violation of Article 6(1)GDPR

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

data is a form of processing as referred to in the GDPR (article 4 sub 2 GDPR). Article 6 of the GDPR provides that the processing of personal data is only

entity has violated article 6 of the GDPR, for carrying out a processing of personal data without legitimacy. II Article 6.1 of the GDPR establishes the assumptions

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

the danger concepts in Article 6 Paragraph 1 Letter e SGK and Article 6 Paragraph 1 Letter d SGK in conjunction with (now) Article 24 Paragraph 1 Letter

question in accordance with Article 6 (1). Travel cards have also referred to Article 17 (1) (b) of the Data Protection Regulation. 3, letter b, according to

hand can not verify its legalitytraining. 3.6.4. In view of what was mentioned in paragraphs 3.6.1. - 3.6.3. above, the DefendantThe perpetrator was obliged

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

claimant’s signature constitute a breach under the GDPR? The AEPD held that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) GDPR, as they had processed the claimant’s data without

of the provisions as set out in Article 95 § 2 and Article 98 of the ICA. They are also informed, pursuant to Article 99 of the ICA, of the time limits

the provisions of article 6 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 14/20 Article 4 of the same GDPR defines "processing"

implementing the ePrivacy Directive and Articles 6(1)(a) and 7 GDPR, in the lights of Article 4(11) and Recital 32 GDPR. Following this report, the GBA issued a

Art 6 AVG - ex-contractual processing plea 6: the right to object - Article 21(1) AVG plea 7: Article 12(3) TFEU - no infringement plea 8: Article 20 AVG-Right

required by Article 6 GDPR. In doing so, the defendant was guilty of a breach of Article 6 of the GDPR. This breach is combined with a breach of Article 5.1.a)

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)

of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance with the provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Agency Spanish

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

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

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

directly on the basis of the GDPR, not the register assessed on the basis of Article 30(1) of the GDPR. II.3. Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR 49. Above, the Disputes

(DPO) under Article 37(7) GDPR, and of its obligation to ensure that its DPO does not have any conflict of interests under Article 38(6) GDPR. In 2018, the

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

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

controller violated Article 6(1)(f) GDPR when accessing the employee's email account and emails. Further, the Datatilsynet breached Article 21 GDPR since the controller

A76539030, for a infringement of article 28.3.g) of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.4 b) of the C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd

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

infringed Article 7 (3) of the DSGVO. In addition, the lack of transparency (§ 6 para 3 KSchG) also resulted from the infringement of Article 12 in conjunction

processing is based on consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, the consent must meet the requirements of, among others, Article 7 GDPR. The DPA observed deficiencies

answered in accordance with the requirements of Article 12 GDPR and within the time limit set in Article 12(3) GDPR. As the complainant continued to receive marketing

of article 17 of the GDPR. X Classification of the infringement of article 17 of the GDPR The aforementioned infringement of article 17 of the GDPR supposes

processing is based on Article 6(1)(e) of the GDPR. This data processing also complies with the due care requirements set by the GDPR. There is therefore

processing (Article 4, point 11, Article 6 (1) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR) 121. With regard to the lawfulness of the processing (art. 6 GDPR), the defendant

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

interest" as a basis for treatment. 5.2. Article 6 (1) (f) of the Privacy Regulation - "legitimate interest" Article 6 (1) (f) requires that the collection

it was not possible to rely on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Secondly, the DPA recalled that, according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, processing of personal data on

procedure. II Article 6.1 of the RGPD, establishes the cases that allow to consider The processing of personal data is lawful. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es

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

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

obligation under Article 37(7) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller to comply with his obligations under Article 13(1)(b) GDPR and Article 37(7) GDPR and to publish

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 of

basis the data are processed in accordance with Article 6 GDPR. This constitutes a breach of Article 6 GDPR. The data subject indicates that they had not

of the data controller in accordance with Article 6.1(f) and recital 47 of the Regulation' (footnote cit., p. 3); e. in response to the requests for access

absence of consent under Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR, a balance of interests according to Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR is required. The legitimate interests pursued by the plaintiff

of public space respect Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR? The AEPD held that the installation of a video surveillance system under Article 22 LOPDGDD must always

established in article 6 of theRegulation (EU) 2016/679. "IIIThe documentation in the file provides evidence that theclaimed, violated article 6.1 of the RGPD

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

Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/3 SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to the claimant. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of

personal data under Article 17 GDPR. On 21 September 2021, the controller confirmed the deletion, as required by Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR. However, the complainant

exceptions from those contained in art. 3. 4 GDPR. In this sense, those provided for in art. 34.3 a) and b). C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd

Data in the External Referral Register. (…)” 3 Review 3.1 In an introductory application pursuant to Article 46 of the Personal Data Protection Act (Wbp)

processor, Vamavi Phone SL, had violated Article 48(1) LGT, Article 21 GDPR in link with Article 23 LOPDGDD and Article 28 GDPR by making a commercial call on behalf

articles 12.5 and 15.3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in the sections 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law. " FIFTH: Article 15 of the RGPD provides

the basis of article 92, 3° of the WOG. 14. The inspection report shall identify potential breaches of Article 5(1). 2 of the AVG, Article 6 of the AVG,

lawful bases of Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) in particular, stating that the actions of the respondents were in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR because the complainant's

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 sedeagpd.gob.es 3/6 FIFTH: The aforementioned

incorrect applies Article 12.3 of the AVG. However, this is not correct. 33. Article 12.3 of the GDPR reads (in its relevant parts): ''Art. 12.3 The controller

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

95/46/EC) on the same date (see Article 94 GDPR). That the initiating petition in this case dates from 22 May 2018 and that Article 48, paragraph 10 of the (Dutch)

the basis of Article 9 (1) of the Data Protection Ordinance [1]. 2, letter h, cf. the Data Protection Act [2] § 7, para. 3, and Article 6, para. 1, letter

subjects and the obligations and rights of the controller'), as per Article 28(3) GDPR, was lacking. Additionally, the DPA highlighted that such contract

constitutes personal data according with Article 4(1) GDPR therefore its processing falls within the scope of GDPR. The DPA also analysed whether the controller

of the duty of information as per article 13 GDPR. The DPA imposed thus a fine of €1000 for violating Article 13 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

information pursuant to Article 15 of the GDPR as alleged by the respondent - was alleged. However, Article 14 (1) to (4) of the GDPR do not apply if the complainant

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

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

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

fulfilled. The school breaches Article 6(1)(b) in combination with Article 6(4) and Article 6(1) Articles 24 and 25 GDPR Furthermore, as the school continued

established in article 6 of theRegulation (EU) 2016/679. "IIIThe documentation in the file provides evidence that theclaimed, violated article 6.1 of the RGPD

infringement of article 5.1(b), as defined in Article 83(5)(a) and considered for the purposes of the statute of limitations in Article 72(1)(a), a fine

2019 Pursuant to article 58, second paragraph, opening words and article 83, fifth paragraph, of the GDPR, read in in connection with article 14, third paragraph

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

which that article 38, section 6, of the GDPR is registered, it should be noted that, according to article 39, paragraph 1, letter b) of the GDPR, the protection

NIF J10460640 , for aviolation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, in relation towith article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of

point (e) of Article 6(1) of the GDPR. 48 If a data subject has objected to the data processing, it follows from Article 21(1) of the GDPR that compelling

violated Article 12 GDPR, as it did not facilitate the data subject´s exercise of their rights, especially the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR. In view

treatment established in article 6 of theRegulation (EU) 2016/679. ”C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 6 6/13IVThe documentation

for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd

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

data is inaccurate or incomplete. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/6 3. The cancellation will lead to the blocking of the

as a data subject under Article 21(1) GDPR had been violated by the PAR. Did Mrs AAA have a right to object under Article 21 GDPR? Had the PAR infringed

even allowed to process the data under Article 10 GDPR. The Court rejected an argument from Brein that article 6:162 BW could be used besides Articles 32

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

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

established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. ” IV The documentation in the file offers evidence that the claimed, violated article 6.1 of the RGPD

has fulfilled the purpose of Article 15 of the GDPR. [Applicant] cannot therefore derive any right from Article 15 of the GDPR to a copy of the documents