Search results

parties (Article 83.2.k of the RGPD in relation to Article 76.2.b of the LOPDGDD) - The turnover or activity figure of the entity (article 83.2.a, of the

signifies cativa (article 83.2 b).  Basic personal identifiers are affected, (name, surname, two, domicile) (according to article 83.2g). Therefore, based

criteria under Art. 83(2)(b) (intentional or negligent character of the infringement) and (e) (previous infringements) of the GDPR. For these reasons,

art. 32 sec. 2, art. 38 sec. 1, art. 39 sec. 1 lit. b and art. 39 sec. 2, art. 30 sec. 1 lit. d, as well as art. 83 sec. 1 - 3, art. 83 sec. 4 letter

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

6, paragraph 1, letter c) and e); paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, letter b) of the RGPD, as well as Article 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Code in the

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

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 personal

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

the complaint (Article 83 (2) (f) GDPR), not linking the activity of the offender to the processing of personal data (Article 76 (2) (b) LOPDGD), the non-existence

The RGPD, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 83 thereof, provides in its Article 58(2)(b) the possibility of using the warning to correct treatment

Based information provided and the authority granted by Article 58 and 83 GDPR, as well as Article 24(b) of National Law 125(I)/2018, the DPA came to the following

managed for, as this is the business of the company (Article 83.2.k of the RGPD in relation to Article 76.2.b of the LOPDGDD) The following circumstances would

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

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

in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD: -The claimed entity does not have previous infringements (83.2 e) RGPD). -It has not obtained direct benefits (83.2 k)

were used (Article 83.2.b, RGPD). -The close connection of the activity of the respondent with the processing of personal data (Article 83.2.k, RGPD in

for in Article 83, paragraph 5, of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation itself and Article 166, paragraph

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

claimed entity has no previous infractions (83.2 e) RGPD). - She has not obtained direct benefits (83.2 k) RGPD and 76.2.c) LOPDGDD). - The Respondent is not

whichever is the greater higher amount, in accordance with Article 83.5(b) of the GPRS. However, Article 58(2) of the GPRS provides that: 'Each supervisory authority

object (Article 21 GDPR) and the right to erasure (Article 17 GDPR) of data subjects. Therefore the controller was not found in breach of Article 25(2) GDPR

parties (Article 83.2.k of the RGPD in relation to Article 76.2.b of the LOPDGDD) The balance of the circumstances referred to in Article 83.2 of the RGPD

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

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

lack of diligence of the claimed (article 83.2.b, RGPD). - Basic personal identifiers are affected (personal data (art.83.2. g) of the RGPD). - The evident

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

been taken up in Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR under the Principles relating to the processing of personal data (Chapter II). Article 5(1)(b) of the RGPD thus

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

conversation and the phone number -E.E.E.-Can you prove that you are B.B.B. , answer Well look for B.B.B. that I am I. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid

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) GDPR

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

of the article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, infringement typified in its article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned regulation. IV. Article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, considers

negligence in the offense (article 83.2 b). - Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, data bank, the line identifier) (article 83.2 g). That is why it is

regard to paragraph (k) of Article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, Article 76, 'Sanctions and corrective measures', provides: '2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

processing of data concerning health laid down in Article 9(1) GDPR is possible under Article 9(2)(h) GDPR) in a case such as the present one, are there further

of the mentioned article 83.2 RGPD.Consequently, the following facts have been taken into account as aggravating factors:-Art. 83.2 b) RGPD: the intentionality

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)

analyzes the criteria set by article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As for the nature and seriousness of the violation (article 83.2 a) of the GDPR), it recalls in with regard

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

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 sanction

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

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

fine, the criteria specified in the same Article 83”. 138. Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20, paragraph III, of the "Informatique et

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

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE Ms. B.B.B., with NIF *** NIF.2, for a violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction

with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 5.1 d) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD and

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

diligence of the claimed party (article 83.2.b, RGPD). - Basic personal identifiers are affected (personal data (art.83.2. g) of the RGPD). - The evident

Protection Agency sanction B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 13 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the RGPD, with a fine

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

Complainant's personal data. 2. the intentional or unintentional nature of the breach (Article 83(2)(b) of Regulation 2016/679). The Article 29 Working Party, in

highly sensitive personal data exposed, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2), cf. Article 24. An employee in a municipal health care center

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

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

following criteria established by article 83.2 of the RGPD, considering as aggravating circumstance according to article 76.2 b) LOPDGDD, the relationship of

for which you are responsible, typified in article 83.5.b) RGPD, the provisions of articles 83.1 and 83.2 of the RGPD must be observed, precepts that state:

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

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

other legal basis for processing under Article 6 GDPR, the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR. Taking into account the low income

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

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

number of personal data. (Article 76.2.b) The balance of the circumstances contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD and the Article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with

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

action (art. 83 (2) (b) GDPR). The AEPD became aware of the infringement through the complainant's filing of a complaint (Art. 83 (2) (h) GDPR). Share your

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

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

points b) and d) and article 83, paragraph 4, al. a), all documented regulation.-In addition, under the terms of article 83, paragraph 3 of the GDPR, the

to Article 83(2)(k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, 'Sanctions and corrective measures', states that "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

or negligence of the offense (article 83.2 b).-Basic personal identifiers (name, surname, NIF) are affected(article 83.2 g).That is why it is considered

of personal data of clients or third parties (article 83.2.k, of the GDPR in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD). The Judgment of the National

Personal Data Act § 26 second paragraph, cf. Article 58 (2) (i) of the Privacy Regulation, cf. Article 83, to pay a infringement fee to the Treasury of

relevant circumstances set out in Article 83.2 of the GDPR:(a) processing of the complainant’s data has been carried out locally;(b) There is no intention on the

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

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

infringement of article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR and 72.1.a) of the LOPDGDD. 2-That in application of article 58.2.c) of

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

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

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)). • There

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

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

requirements, in violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, letter c) and e), paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, letter b), of the Regulation and Article 19, paragraph 3, of

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

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:

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)

significant negligent action (article 83.2 b).  Basic personal identifiers are affected, according to the article 83.2g). Therefore, in accordance with

or of the Member States ”. The violation of article 32 is classified in article 83.4.a) of the cited GDPR in the following terms: "4. Violations of the

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), the Restricted Training

provided for in Article 83.5.b) in relation to Article 13; and third, an infringement provided for in Article 83.4.a) in relation to Article 28 all of them

the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU)2016/679 may also be taken into account:a) The continuing nature of the offense.b) The linking of the

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

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

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

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

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

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 sanctions

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

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

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

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

"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

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

infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of theRGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with article 58.2.b) of theRGPD.SECOND: REQUEST

” 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

but significant (article 83.2 b)  Basic personal identifiers are affected, in this case the image of the minor, according to article 83.2 g). Therefore,

significant (article 83.2 b). - Basic personal identifiers (name, an identification number, the line identifier) are affected (article 83.2 g). - Any previously

Articles 13 GDPR and 7 GDPR respectively? To determine the amount of the penalty, the AEPD took into account three criteria in Article 83(2) GDPR: unintentional

Articles 6 and 13 GDPR? The AEPD decided to impose, for infringement of Article 6 GDPR, a fine of € 10000 and, for infringement of Article 13 GDPR, a fine of

high (Article 83 (2 ) (a) of Regulation 2016/679); b) relevant previous violations of the provisions of Regulation 2016/679 by the Company (Article 83 (2

aggravating circumstance according to Article 83(2)(i) or as a separate violation according to Article 83(5)(e) or Article 83(6). Since the situation at hand

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

pursuant to Art. 14 par. 5 lit. b GDPR? The President of UODO found that: 1) The applicable provision is the Art. 14 GDPR since the data controller collects

established by article 83.2 of the RGPD:As aggravating the following:We are facing unintentional, but significant negligent action(article 83.2 b)Basic personal

unintentional but significant negligent action (Article 83.2 b) Basic personal identifiers are affected, according to the 83.2g) Therefore, in accordance with the

interests of employees (Article 83 (2) (a) and (k) of the General Data Protection Regulation). The Authority did not consider Article 83 (2) (b), (c), (d), (f)

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

third parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relationwith article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD)SAWIn accordance with articles 58.2 and 83.2 of the RGPD, previously

imposition of measures, according to article 58.2 d) of the GDPR. Along with it and In accordance with article 58.2 of the GDPR, it was also indicated that the

11, 148, 150, and Article 5, Chapter IV and Article 83. 4 2.8 Chapter IV, Section 2 addresses security of personal data. Article 32 GDPR provides: 1. Taking

Subject: IRREVOCABLE DIMITION A.A.A. AND B.B.B. OF FOUNDATION SYNDROME 5P To: A.A.A. < ***EMAIL.1> , AA B.B.B. ***EMAIL.2 • The Foundation has written to the

significant (article 83.2 b) Basic personal identifiers (name, an identification number, the line identifier) are affected, according to article 83.2 g) • •

identified significant (Article 83(2)(b)) Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, surname), in accordance with Article 83(2)(g) Therefore, in accordance

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)

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

es 11/20 RGPD, and article 74.k) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of 100,000 euros, of in accordance with article 83.2.a) of the RGPD and 76.2.b) of the LOPDGDD.)

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

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

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

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

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 the provision contained in Article 15, paragraph

(art.83, par.2 , letters b), d) and g) of the Regulation. On the other hand, pursuant to letters a) and c) of the aforementioned art. 83, par. 2, it was

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

in article 83.2 of the RGPD: As aggravating criteria: - Basic personal identifiers are affected (names and photographs of three people) (article 83.2 g)

basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR: “...there is a risk that the Draft Decision’s failure to establish Whatsapp IE's infringement of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, pursuant

infringement of article 5.1.f), in relation to article 6.1, of the RGPD. The infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5.a) of the

Finnish DPA found a retail chain to have breached Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR for its lengthy storage of purchase behaviour

whichever is higher, is applied. With reference to the elements listed in Article 83(2) of the Regulation for the purposes of the application of the pecuniary

the Authority judged the processing unlawful on the basis of Article 6 (1) (c) (e), (2), (3) (b). Also, the Garante found that the personal data published

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

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.

protection. /Article 6.1 c) Ju in combination with Article 6.3 of the GDPR. b) Violation of Articles 5.1.a}, 12.1, 13.lc}, 13.2.a}, 13.2.d}, and 13.2.e}, for

ADDRESS B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 13 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5.b) of the GDPR, a warning. SECOND: TO ORDER B.B.B., with

2019, item 1781) in connection with Article 31, Article 58(1)(e) in connection with Article 83(1-3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679 of the

into account and issued a fine of €2,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR as classified under Article 83(5) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share

significant negligent action (article 83.2 b) - Basic personal identifiers (name, surname, address) are affected, according to Article 83(2)(g) Therefore, on the

private and professional spheres, to be applicable (see Article 2 and Article 41, paragraph 2, Cost). Niemietz c. Allemagne, 16.12.1992 (Rec. no. 13710/88)

third parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD) The continued nature of the infraction (article 83.2.k of the RGPD

connection with Article 5 paragraph 1 point a, Article 5 paragraph 2, Article 6 paragraph 1, Article 7 paragraph 3, Article 12 paragraph 2, Article 17 paragraph

Regulation (RGPD), and Article 7 of the LOPDGDD, as defined in Article 83(5) of the RGPD, a warning sanction provided for in Article 58(2)(b) of the RGPD) SECOND:

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

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

sanctioned for violation of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD, with warning of in accordance with article 58.2.b) of the RGPD. After

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

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

sec. 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 and 2 of Regulation 2016/679. 2) Intentional or unintentional nature of the breach (Article 83(2)(b) of Regulation 2016/679) - the

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE Don B.B.B., with NIF *** NIF.1, for a violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of €

circumstances referred to in Article 83(2) of the RGPD, with with regard to the infringement committed in breach of the provisions of Article 13 thereof allows set

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

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

Spanish City Council with a warning of an infringement of Article 5(1)(c) pursuant to Article 83(5) over installed surveillance cameras in the City Hall

the company comply with the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR, as well as with the rest provisions of Article 5(1) GDPR and d) issued a fine EUR

of Article 83(2) and recital 148 of the Rules of Procedure and that, therefore, it may be sufficient to admonish Iliad, pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) of

perpetrator (Article 83(2) GDPR). Lastly, the amount of the fine shall not exceed the maximum amounts provided for in Articles 83(4) (5) and (6) GDPR. The quantification

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:

diligence through an employee regarding the completion of the contract (article 83.2.b of the RGPD). The mere coincidence of name and surname does not justify

violation of art. 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Code and art. 6, par. 1, lett. c) and e); par. 2 and par. 3, lett. b), of the GDPR; b) in a manner that

as established in article 5 of the GDPR. The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. III The GDPR defines personal

exercise his or her rights (Article 58(2)(c) GDPR), the power to impose a fine under Article 83 GDPR (Article 58(2)(i) GDPR) does not serve to safeguard

conjunction with Article 62 (1) 4 DSG and for the period prior to 25 May 2018 against Article 52 Paragraph 2 no. 7 in conjunction with § 50b par. 2 DSG 2000.

relation to Article 6(1)(a) GDPR since the consent could not be considered valid. Finally, the DPA applied two aggravating circumstances of Article 83(2) GDPR:

of APERCIBIMENTO to B.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

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

Protection, pursuant to Article 83(3) and Article 83(4)(a) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679, in conjunction with Article 103 of the Personal Data

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with the provisions of Article 77.2 of the LOPDGDD

publication of their data under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and there was no other legal basis for the processing under Article 9(2) GDPR. Consequently, the DSB issued

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 circumstances

legal bases of contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR), legal obligation (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR) and legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) and determined that

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

acquittal. " V However, what is established in article 83.5, sections a) and b), of the RGPD, its art. 58.2 b) provides the possibility of sanctioning with

private doctor for violating Article 32 GDPR by making his patients' health data freely accessible on the web, and Article 33 GDPR by not notifying the DPA

Debtor pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation because its data processing activities violated Article 5 (1) (d) of the

for the alleged violation of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD in relation to article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD. FIFTH: The Agreement

faced with unintentional negligent action, butsignificant identified (article 83.2 b)C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 7 11/7Basic

procedure to the claimed, by the alleged violation of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 b) of the RGPD. SIXTH: Notified the initiation agreement

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

" Under Article 83 (2), (5) and (7) of the General Data Protection Regulation: administrative fines in accordance with Article 58 (2) (a) to (b), depending

and services". B. On the breach of the obligation to inform pursuant to Article 14 of the GDPR 20. According to Article 14 of the GDPR: 1. Where personal

32 para 1, 56 para 2, 57 para 1 of the Administrative Criminal Act 1991 - VStG, Federal Law Gazette No 52/1991 as amended; Article 82 para 6 of Regulation

assessment pursuant to Article 83. On this basis, the tribunal has assessed whether a reprimand pursuant to Article 58 no. 2 letter b, cf. 83 no. 2 would have been

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

administrative fine in the amount of 2,000,000 ISK on the controller under Article 83(2)(a) GDPR and Article 83(2)(g) GDPR. This is just one of five decisions

criteria established in Article 83.2 of the RGPD: As aggravating criteria: - Intentionality or negligence in the infringement (paragraph b). - For other previous

” 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

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

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 defendant for an infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR a warning penalty in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

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

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

fundamental principles of the GDPR, notably Article 5(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The DPA found violations of various provisions of the GDPR. It held that the controller

violation of Article 5(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) GDPR. Furthermore, there was no legal basis for these processing operations under Article 6(1) GDPR. The DPA

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

(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 the

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

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 d) of the RGPD that

by the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: On

NIF B87914446, for the alleged violation of article 28 of the RGPD typified in accordance with Article 83.4.a) of the RGPD. SECOND: APPOINT B.B.B. as instructor

prove the lawfulness of processing according to Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and for violating Article 12(2) GDPR by creating undue barriers to the exercise of the

APERCIBIMENTO to B.B.B., with NIF *** 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 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 Articles 5(1)(a), 6 and 28(3) GDPR and adopted an administrative fine on the basis of Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR. The total amount of the fine took

violation of article 12 of the GDPR Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83 of the GDPR, the aforementioned Regulation provides in section 2.b) of article

unlawfully. 2.4 Administrative fine Pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, preamble, in conjunction with Article 83, paragraph 4, of the GDPR and article 14, third

" 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

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

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

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

orrequest-related processing activities. ». 2.5. Article 32 - Processing security:2.5.1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure, which

this regard [GDPR Article 14 (2) b) ]. (iv) The prospectus did not provide any information regarding data subject rights [GDPR Article 14 (2) c)]. In the

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:

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

Customer 2. as a data processor 1) finds that Customer 2. has not complied with Article 32 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation; paragraph (b) when

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

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 circumstances

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

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

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

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 15 of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5 b) of the RGPD. Against the initial agreement, no

thearticle 5.1.f), in relation to article 6.1 of the RGPD.The violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5.a)of the RGPD. The LOPDGDD

obtained from them, as required under Article 14(1)(a) AVG and Article 14(2)(c)(e) and point (f) AVG; c. article 12 j° article 14 AVG, in view of the defendant

accountability (Article 5 (2) and 24 (1), (2) GDPR), privacy by design (Article 25 (1) GDPR) and as controller towards its data processors (Article 28 GDPR). Consequently

and the Council in the context of Article 31, Article 58(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 83(1) to (3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679 of the

subjects infringes Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. The AEPD fined the data processor in an amount of 4,000 Euro for the violation of Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. Since the

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

COM) with NIF B87043691 is exempt from liability which could constitute a breach of Article 13 of the GPRS, a breach of Article 83.5 (b) of the GPRS SECOND:

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

in points 7.1 and 8.3 of the decision. 2. Decision on order and infringement fine 1. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (2) of the Privacy Regulation, EAS / Elektro

and in a transparency (b. "a"), purpose limitation (b. “b”), data minimisation (b. “c”), accuracy (b. “d”), storage limitation (b. “e”), integrity and confidentiality

contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD, with Regarding the offense committed by violating the provisions of article 13, it allows set a penalty of 2,000 euros

forseen in Articles 15 to 22 GDPR. Failure to provide this information constitutes a "serious infraction" per Article 83.5 GDPR. However, the DPA held that

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, in relation to article 5 of the LOPDGDD, as indicated in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. The telematic

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

the alleged violation of article 28 of the RGPD in relation to the Article 24 of the RGPD punishable in accordance with article 83.4 of the RGPD, for the

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

administrative sanction provided in conjunction with art. 2-quater, 166, paragraph 2, of the Code, and 83, par. 3 and 5, of the Regulations; NOTING that for the

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

information. IV Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83.5, sections a) and b), of the RGPD, its art. 58.2 b) provides the possibility of sanctioning with

company for faulty website security (article 32 GDPR) and violation of the storage limitation principle (article 5(1)(e) GDPR). After a complaint in 2018, the

cf. Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i, cf. Article 83. Both infringements of Article 6 and Article 13 may be sanctioned with a fee, cf. Article 85, paragraph

processing 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

regarding Article 6(1) GDPR and consent requirements regulated previously to GDPR. The fact that the infringements related to Article 25 GDPR did not include