Search results

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

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 this right

processing of personal data is carried out in accordance with the GDPR. In doing so, the GDPR requires, among other things, that the nature and scope of the

capture images of common areas of the neighborhood violates Article 5 of the GDPR (data minimization). A neighbor had placed cameras in his door directed to

28(3) GDPR. Verizon replied that the obligation to conclude a written agreement between controller and processor is not clearly stated in the GDPR. Such

all the persona data mentioned by virtue of Article 15(1) GDPR, in the lights of Recital (63) GDPR. Thus, the authority ruled that the lack of a complete

of the GDPR, and even less than one month between the deletion from the edict file and the request for deletion pursuant to Article 17 of the GDPR. Furthermore

consequent infringement of the data minimisation principle (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR). The decision is the consequence of a complaint submitted by a Spanish citizen

in Article 25 GDPR. Additionally, the AEPD concluded that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, noting that although the GDPR does not demand

subject's access request within the time limits imposed by Article 12(3) GDPR. On 19 September 2019, the data subject requested Poliambulatorio Talenti S.r

pursuant to Article 12 (4) of the GDPR, hence the Customer’s request for access did not meet the requirements of the GDPR. III.1.2. The Customer's request

considers that, in accordance with the provisions of recital 63 of the GDPR and Article 15(4) of the GDPR, it is not obliged to respond to them if it would

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

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

Articles 6, 7 and 12 of the GDPR. In the contested decision, the Belgian DPA found the infringement of Article 6, 7, 12, 13 and 24 GDPR sufficiently proven. In

of the GDPR. 92. 92. Firstly, the restricted formation emphasises that, in this case, the criterion provided for in Article 83(2)(a) of the GDPR relating

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

Company claimed that under the GDPR, there is no right that a trade union can exercise. They thought that the justiciability of GDPR is limited only to the natural

Article 13 GDPR. In the present case, the controller omitted this obligation. The DPA therefore held that the controller violated Article 13 GDPR by neither

Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned a Luxembourg

1 b) GDPR) and the legality of the processing (Article 6.1 GDPR); as well • compliance with the responsibility of the controller (Article 24 GDPR), security

at [residence], against the judgment of the District Court of Gelderland of 19 December 2018 in Case No 18/3073 in the proceedings between: [appellant] and

excessiveness of the request under Article 12(5) GDPR alleging that the data subject uses Article 15 GDPR only to verify the validity of the premium increases

with the GDPR. Especially, if the installation of surveillance camera is contrary to the data minimisation principle, under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. First,

and C”. 57See in particular Articles 5.1.a) and 12 of the GDPR, see also recital (39) of the GDPR. 58cf. points 11 and 12 of this decision. 59“Objective 2

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 Spanish

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. The Spanish

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

According to Recital 47 GDPR, the reasonable expectations of the data subject at the time of processing must also be set aside. Although the recital is primarily

14/19 Any part of the declaration that constitutes an infringement of the this Regulation (…). In relation to these two cited articles, the recital should

interpretation of the GDPR. Second, the court argued with the drafting history of the GDPR which connects Article 15(3) GDPR to Article 20(1) GDPR, showing that

Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned a Luxembourg

constitute a violation of the GDPR? The AEPD held that the email constituted a confidentiality breach and violated Article 32 GDPR, as the law firm had failed

Respondent explained that the GDPR does not recognize any express “group privilege”, but it can be deduced from Recital 48 to the GDPR that an exchange of customer

of the GDPR. The scope of application of the GDPR is opened pursuant to Art. 2 and Art. 3 of the GDPR. Recital21 Pursuant to Art. 2(1) of the GDPR, the Regulation

accordance with Article 6(2) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR for adaptation to the application of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The court stressed that

consent under Article 8 GDPR also apply? Did the defendant, as the controller, fail to adhere to the data transparency (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR) and the data minimisation

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

personal data of French data subject and held that the GDPR was applicable pursuant of Article 3(2)(a) GDPR. The DPA determined that the controller offered services

95/46/EC (hereinafter: general data protection regulation or GDPR), and Article 6 (1) of the GDPR. 2. The Authority finds that Customer 1 violated the principle

investigation into CP&A's compliance with Article 9, as well as Article 32 GDPR. Since Article 9 GDPR prohibits the processing of special categories of data, including

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 on the

pronunciation 29-05-2020 Date of publication 08-06-2020 Case number UTR 19 /1761 and UTR 19/1627 Jurisdictions Administrative law Special features First instance

under the GDPR and the controller could not comply with its obligation under Article 19 GDPR. For this reason, the court held that the GDPR violation did

VwGO). Recital 64 The fact that the 2022 census collects and processes personal data within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR (Art. 4 No. 2 GDPR), which

data relating to health within the meaning of article 4.19 of the GDPR – (article 13.1. c) of the GDPR) and does not mention the data retention periods personal

permit does not meet the data minimization requirement under Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR. Data subject had asked the controller whether they could mask the data subject’s

article 82(1) GDPR, asking for the data controller to be held liable for the damage caused to them by the data processing which infringed the GDPR. Should a

to Article 13 (1) of the GDPR of what is written in paragraph Recital (39) of the GDPR and Article 5 (1) point a) of the GDPR stipulate that the information

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 policy breached

especially in the area of ​​fines,uncontroversially expressed in recital 150 of the GDPR “In order to reinforceand harmonize administrative sanctions for

the GDPR also applied to facts before the above-mentioned date. The Court noted that the entry-into-force of the GDPR according to Article 99 GDPR represents

79 GDPR in cases of an alleged violation of Article 15 GDPR or can such violation only be subject to a complaint before a DPA under Article 77 GDPR? Do

of the GDPR, which is a condition for a reprimand pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Material scope of the GDPR According to the court, the GDPR applies

review under Article 78 GDPR. The disputed infringement occurred before the GDPR came into legal force according to Article 99 GDPR. Therefore, the data subject's

sensitive personal data under Article 9 GDPR and their lack of valid consent to do so under Article 6(1) GDPR. In 2020, the Norwegian Consumer Council

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

Data, https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0033572/2013-03-01. 47See also recital 75 of the GDPR. 12/41Date Unidentified May 31, 2021 [CONFIDENTIAL] processing infringes

controller has acted in violation of article 15.1. and 15.3 GDPR. 3 2See also Recital 59 GDPR. […] The controller should be obliged without undue delay and

four cumulative requests for information (prot. Nos. 36218/18, 8975 / 19, 34440/19 and 5725/20), which examined 131 files, each of which referred to the

Article 60(3) GDPR. Six DPAs (DE, FI, FR, IT, NL, NO) raised objections, in accordance with Article 60(4) GDPR, to the Draft Decision. On 19 August 2022

under Article 13 GDPR. Incidentally, the DPA also found that such a privacy policy was not complete and did not comply with the GDPR requirements. In addition

mother-company enough to trigger the maximum limit of 72 hours? The Recital 87 of the GDPR clearly reflects that the issue of Controller "awareness" and its

the Article 12 of the GDPR, in conjunction with Article 17 of the GDPR. V Classification of the infringement of article 12 of the GDPR The aforementioned

also its technical capacity. The District Court invoked Article 24 and Recital 78 GDPR and concluded that data controllers must take appropriate technical

invoked Recital 1 GDPR and Recital 4 GDPR and the definition of processing under Article 4(2) GDPR. Then, it noted that according to Article 9 GDPR and Recital

the parties). With regard to Article 99(2) GDPR, the Court already expressed doubts as to whether Article 82 GDPR is applicable to the deletion/blocking that

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 data security

also supported by Recital 128 GDPR. Therefore, the court found the independent nature of the church supervisory authorities to be GDPR-compliant. Second

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

(Considering 40 GDPR), Article 6.1 of the GDPR is therefore applicable and not RD 1720/2007 used by the defendant. Thus, the aforementioned article 6.1 GDPR establishes

comply with Article 5(2) GDPR. The DPA determined that the controller violated Article 15 GDPR. The DPA stated that Article 15(1)(c) GDPR must be interpreted

controller and processor in the GDPR”, adopted on July 7, 2021. 6 GDPR, Art. 12. 7GDPR, Art. 12.2 and 12.3. 8 GDPR, Art. 12.3. 9 GDPR, art. 12.3. Decision 172/2022

information required under Art. 14 GDPR. recital 60 The defendant requests Recital 61 reject the complaint. Recital 62 As justification, she repeats her

such acts and uploaded the video to Instagram had infringed Article 6(1) GDPR, for processing personal data without a legitimate basis (namely without

the data minimization principle, as foreseen in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Recital 39 GDPR. Share your comment here! Share blogs or news articles here! See

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, ordered

correspondence (including personal data) has taken place. According to Recital 63(1) GDPR, the right of access serves to ensure that the data subject can be

with the GDPR or whether it also covers damages arising from infringements of any provision of the GDPR. It pointed out that Article 82(1) GDPR refers to

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

data in the context of telephone jokes. Article 6 GDPR (legality of processing) and Articles 13 and 14 GDPR (transparency) were infringed. The decision is

Article 9(1) GDPR. Since Article 9 GDPR was not applicable, the DPA examined the lawfulness of the processing under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR which was put

this Agency, on October 19, 2021, the party is informed claimant that his claim has been admitted for processing on January 19, 2022, as three months have

ECLI:EU:C:2017:994) and Breyer (CUJE, 19 October 2016, C-582/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:779). 5GDPR, Art. 4, 2). GDPR, recitals 74, 79 and 81; GDPR, art. 4. 7), 4.8), 24, 26

basis for providing personal data to third parties • Article 15(4) and recital 63 GDPR indicate that the right to obtain a copy must be without prejudice to

Regulationright of rectification, even though they had the opportunity to do so. Page 19 19The Applicants sent it to the Authority on 24 April 2020 by e-mail onlyIn

2022, Art. 82 GDPR marginal number 14). With regard to recital 146 sentence 1 of the GDPR, however, processing must have violated the GDPR (Nemitz, in:

Article 6 GDPR. The DPA established that notwithstanding that the controller has a legal basis for processing, processing is still in breach of the GDPR when

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 calculated

temperature-check measures, implemented in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to GDPR? The DPA emphasises that body temperature shall be considered

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

able to check its legality (Recital 63 GDPR). The information must comply with the transparency requirement of Art 12 Para 1 GDPR, which requires that information

scientific research purposes is permitted under Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, and recalled that Recital 159 GDPR provides that “the processing of personal data for scientific

contract (recital 44 of the GDPR), on the basis of a legal obligation, for the performance of a task in the public interest (recital 45 of the GDPR) or in

rectification (Art. 16 GDPR), erasure (Art. 17 GDPR) or compensation (Art. 82 GDPR). 119 Cf. BVerwG, judgment of 16 September 2020. 120 - 6 C 10.19 -, juris, marginal

CJEU on the following questions: 1. Is Article 15(3) GDPR in conjunction with Article 12(5) GDPR to be interpreted to the effect that the controller is

c) GDPR in conjunction with Article 5.1 a) GDPR and Article 5.2 GDPR. - Violation of article 13.1 d) GDPR in conjunction with article 5.1 a) GDPR and

automated) and can in principle be processed manually (recital 15 of the GDPR), considering Article 2 of the GDPR that "This Regulation applies to the processing

article 6 of the GDPR. The assumptions that allow the processing of personal data to be considered lawful listed in article 6.1 of the GDPR: 1. Treatment

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 per

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 or news

fraudulently in the complainant's name. This was in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR (lawfulness of processing). Vodafone payed the reduced fine of €36000 (guilty

Resolution regarding the right to access (art. 15 GDPR) and its formalities art. 12(2) GDPR. The Health service of the Balearic Islands (Controller) didn’t

under Article 15(1) GDPR are not covered as such by Article 82(1) GDPR. The court reached this conclusions by looking at Recital 146 GDPR and at the original

committee fall under national security as defined by Recital 16 GDPR, therefore, making Article 2(2)(a) GDPR applicable? 3) If question 2 is answered in the

55(3) GDPR a DPA does not have the competence to oversee processings such as the ones at issue in the present case. The Court mentioned Recital 20 GDPR

obtain the deletion of the data referred to in Article 17 GDPR, because Article 17 (3) (b) GDPR precludes this. By publishing the decision, the District

Article 83.4.a of the GDPR. Assessing the circumstances modifying liability, both adverse and favourable, contemplated in article 83.2 GDPR, the AEPD established

obligation in Article 19 GDPR, even though the controller bears the burden of proof under Article 5(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 24(1) GDPR. Share your comments

Articles 6.1.C and 9.2.i) of the GDPR. 86. In accordance with Article 6.3 of the GDPR, read in the light of recital 41 of the GDPR, the processing of 26 personal

the fact that the GDPR incorporates EU antitrust law not only from the wording of the provision, but also from recital 150 to the GDPR. This states: "Where

only investigating GDPR infringements but also breaches of the Directive ePrivacy, transcribed into French law. It reminded that GDPR and ePrivacy each

interpretation of the term 'controller' in the GDPR. Indeed, it follows from recital 9 of the preamble to the GDPR that the objectives and principles of Directive

initiated administrative proceedings. The DPA found that the controller violated GDPR provisions because the technical measures implemented by the Company have

Article 15 GDPR by providing a general overview of the data being processed. The controller is obliged to provide a copy under Article 15(3) GDPR only insofar

term "pain and suffering" is not used in Art. 82 GDPR or in the other norms of the GDPR. Art. 82 (1) GDPR only standardizes a “claim for damages” for every

profile of this person (35 to 37). justification point). 11 Recital 85. 12 Recital 87. 13 Recital 93. 14 In the judgment, the CJEU addressed issues concerning

1212/19 Title: Right to information according to Art. 15 GDPR chains of standards: StPO § 147 paragraph 5, § 496 paragraph 3 AO § 91, § 364 GDPR Art. 2

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

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 the principle of

Departure Service (Dienst Terugkeer & Vertrek) on the basis Article 12 GDPR and 15 GDPR. The State Secretary of Justice, on behalf of The Repatriation and

and 21 GDPR. No unlawful processing by BKR so that Art. 17 para. 1 lit. d GDPR is not applicable. BKR filed an objection pursuant to art. 21 GDPR to consider

provide the relevant information under Article 13 GDPR when processing expressions of interest for COVID-19 vaccination on the e-government portal. The ministry

77 GDPR equals the right to claim a full substantive investigation and a full substantive assessment by the supervisory authority? Article 57 GDPR provides

fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, and the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR. Additionally, the HDPA held that the employer’s

Court of Stuttgart points out that the absence of information of Article 13 GDPR constitutes an unfair trade-based action as understood by § 3 of the national

(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 Respondent

The Hungarian DPA (NAIH) found a violation of Article 15 GDPR and obliged a controller to grant a complainant access to his personal data. A complainant

communications using the GDPR, specifically on the basis of Article 4.11, Article 6.1.a GDPR (consent requirement) and Article 13 GDPR (information to be provided)

Article 15(1) GDPR. The data subject was not entitled to further disclosure. On the applicability of the GDPR: The court determined that the GDPR and the data

4(1) GDPR are only living persons (Recital 27 GDPR) the data concerning already deceased persons does not constitute personal data under the GDPR. Secondly

it was identifiable and therefore the GDPR was applicable. However, the processing was compliant with the GDPR. An applicant asked to erase all data on

violation of the GDPR by the local authorities considering the lack of prove of an actual damage caused by the lack of information under the GDPR. To be compensated

Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. When the cameras also record, as in this case, public or private spaces, this provisions doesn’t apply. Therefore, the GDPR was applicable

precautionary measure in accordance with Art. 21 GDPR and requested a suspension in accordance with Art. 18 GDPR. On August 25, 2020, he complained again about

(5) GDPR regarding the exercise of the trade of the address method and direct marketing companies, which are within the borders of the GDPR (Recital Gr

is the Purpose of the data processing of the claimed person. III Recital 61 of the GDPR indicates: "Information on the processing of their data must be

the reference to Article 79(2) GDPR from Article 82(6) GDPR, and the fact that one could argue that Article 82(6) GDPR overrides Member State procedural

to article 19 of the GDPR) and the deletion of this data on the sites where that have been published (according to article 17.2 of the GDPR).  Copy of

violation of § 2(8) of the Cookie Law and against the wording of Recital 43 GDPR and Recital 32 GDPR, as interpreted by the EDPB. Secondly, a permanent and clear

German original for more details. VGH Munich, decision of 20.05.2020 - 12 B 19.1648Title:Right to information according to the right of misuse against service

not override the data subject's right to privacy. Pursuant to Article 17(1) GDPR, the data subject had requested Google LLC (the controller) to remove several

consent, Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. In particular, Article 6 (1) (c) (legal obligation of the controller and Article 6 (1) (e) GDPR (public interest) do not

current practice, for example, in the recitals of directives (see Communication of the European Commission of 19 October 2010, Strategy for the Effective

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 25 GDPR, as a result

legal requirements applicable to him. take responsibility for the local party. 19. On 31 July 2019, the Inspectorate will submit its report to the Dispute Settlement

sense of the GDPR, it can be applied similarly to the GDPR. The enforcement bodies (the ECtHR under the ECHR and the DPAs under the GDPR) must only deal

complainant were taken by the defendant: Annex 1: List of suppliers of A***pharma (19 suppliers) Appendix 2: Complete inventory list A***pharma, cut-off date 14

forward a balancing test as required by Articles 21(1) and 6(1)(e) GDPR and Recital 69 GDPR. It found that the BKR registration was made correctly and the

Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and against the provisions of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1)(f) GDPR in conjunction with Article 6(4) GDPR. Further, the DSB

Para. 5 GDPR were met in the present case. According to Art. 12 Para. 5 GDPR, the first-time provision of the information under Art. 15 Para. 3 GDPR had to

appeared on her covid-19 vaccination certificate. In this case the controller, the Brindisi Local Health Authority, was distributing covid-19 vaccines. The data

damage. As can be seen from recital 146 sentence 3 of the GDPR, the concept of damage is to be interpreted broadly. Recital 75 GDPR cites as examples of damage

territorial scope of the GDPR, Article 3 of the GDPR assumes of two different cases. In the first case (Article 3.1 of the GDPR), the data processing carried

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. The fact

01"). 21 See in particular Articles 5.1(a) and 12 of the GDPR, see also Recital (39) of the GDPR. _____________________________________________________________

10.7.2020 - 385 C 155/19 (70); LG Hamburg, judgment of 04.09.2020 - 324 S 9/19; AG Hannover, judgment of 09.03.2020 - 531 C 10952/19; LG Frankfurt/M., judgment

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

with number UTR 19/607 and was also heard by this court on 15 October 2019. 2 This concerns the aforementioned appeal with number UTR 19/607, which was

violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and the controller had no legal basis for the processing as required by Article 6 GDPR. As a result of the violations

family privacy of citizens and the full exercise of their rights.” Recital 40 of the GDPR states that “For the processing to be lawful, the Personal data

procedure fall within the scope of the GDPR pursuant to Article 2(1) of the GDPR and consequently the rules of the GDPR apply to these processing. The Authority

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

DPA initiated supervision pursuant to Article 56 GDPR in accordance with the Article 60 GDPR cooperation mechanism. The handover of the complaint was made

would like to specify the following with regard to its competence (points 19-22). 19. The Litigation Division notes that it appears from the complaint filed

member states is superimposed (see Recital 146 S 4 and 5 on the GDPR; cf. also Frenzel in Paal / Pauly, GDPR-BDSG3 Art 82 GDPR margin no.1; Wybitul / Haß / Albrecht

with the requirements of Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR? In relation to Article 13 and 14 of the GDPR, the AEPD held that the information CaixaBank provided

Article 4(16) GDPR." Consequently, the DPA concluded that the cooperation mechanism and procedure set out in Article 56(1) GDPR and Article 60 GDPR did not apply

an Italian Hospital. Counter operators sent reports by e-mail in the Covid-19 period contrary to the indication to only deliver them personally. The Italian

personal data was automated. Thus Article 2(1) GDPR applies and the processing falls within the scope of the GDPR. The DPA assessed that a summons to one of

reached by means other than email exchanges. c) Weighing of interests (recital 47 GDPR): It is important to take into account the expectations of the data

that the GDPR does not apply to the processing of the data of the companies of the complainant's customers with referring to recital 14 of the GDPR, the Disputes

Article 13(1)(c) and (2)(a) of the GDPR. II.4. Article 5 GDPR, Article 24 (1) GDPR and Article 25 (1) and (2) GDPR II.4.1. Findings in the Inspection Report

to Article 2 (1) of the GDPR, the GDPR applies to the processing of data in the present case. The relevant provisions of the GDPR in the present case are

of Article 4(1) GDPR. Nevertheless, in this case the controller had the right to disregard the request in light of Article 12(5)(b) GDPR, as the latter

corrective measure was imposed in order to assure future compliance with the GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The decision

purposes pursued by Article 15 of the GDPR, it is noted that, as specified in Recital 11, the purpose of the GDPR is to strengthen and specify in detail

Article 28 BayVwVfG (cf. also GDPR recital 129). As a remedial measure, the prohibition order is based on Art. 58 (2) GDPR. Since this is a prohibition

a basis of lawfulness own. Recital 50 of the GDPR 11 is explicit in this regard. These legal bases 9Recital 50 of the GDPR: [...] In order to establish

grounds for processing according to Art 6 Para 1 GDPR (see Art 6 Para 1 lit a GDPR; as well as recital 43 GDPR). Only one (valid) consent is subsequently one

LinkedIn and Salesforce.com. The DPA held that the GDPR was not applicable according to Article 3 GDPR. The controller was a company based in the United

and (4) GDPR.” 32. Article 32 of the GDPR relates to the security of processing of personal data. More specifically, Article 32(1) of the GDPR states that

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

provision of personal data on the account is explicitly allowed by the GDPR as Recital 63 GDPR states that, where possible, the controller should be able to provide

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

regarding the meetings of the COVID-19 Monitoring Commission 19”. Regarding the allegations made in the sense that, “(…) Law 19/2013 allows and even obliges to

3 of the GDPR, but no infringement on Article 38. 1, 38.2 and 38.6 of the GDPR and no infringement of Article 39 of the GDPR. 5. On February 19, 2021, the

is also confirmed by the explanations in recitals 75, 85 and 146 of the GDPR. First, recital 146 of the GDPR, which specifically concerns the right to

Villingen-Schwenningen - Chambers of Radolfzell - of 13 November 2019 - 7 Ca 239/19 Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The decision

Article 81 of the GDPR, but not the actually relevant Article 82 of the GDPR. The claims asserted in the counterclaim under Article 82 of the GDPR were confirmed

data within the meaning of Article 4(1) GDPR and thus cannot be object of an access request under Article 15(3) GDPR. Making reference to CJEU case C-434/16

provision unconstitutional does not impede the full implementation of the GDPR, since GDPR is directly applicable and most of its provisions are directly effective

controller violated Article 6 GDPR because it had no legal basis to disclose the email addresses. It reasoned that Article 6(1)(a) GDPR was not applicable because

they shall be jointly and severally liable pursuant to Article 82(4) and Recital 146 sent. 7. However, joint and several liability presupposes that the conditions

to the properties, defending the baseless claims of B. as well as A". GDPR' Recital 111 provides that provisions should be made where the transfer is occasional

had violated Article 6(1) GDPR since the legitimate interest assessment on which the processing was based (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) was understood as insufficient

to access under Article 15 GDPR. Second, the Court considered whether the claimant could have invoked their Article 15 GDPR rights if the data in question

(1) GDPR. 64According to the recitals of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the concept of damage is to be interpreted broadly (see Recital No

with the data subject’s rights of information under Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR, the hospital should firstly make clear what the legal basis for

of the GDPR, as well as Article 15.1 of the GDPR, which in this case justifies taking a decision on the basis of article 95, § 1, 5° of the LCA. 19. The

her”. 7. Recital 32 of the GDPR materially states that “When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them” . Recital 42 materially

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

(Article 5(2) GDPR), of engagement of a processor (Article 28 GDPR), and in respect of the security of processing of personal data (Article 32 GDPR). However

according to Article 23 GDPR, restrictions of obligations and rights under Article 12 GDPR - Article 22 GDPR Article 34 GDPR and Article 5 GDPR, insofar as its

101 and 102 TFEU (see Recital 150 GDPR) only applies to those within the meaning of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (see Recital 150 GDPR). is relevant for the

view to vigorous enforcement of the rules of the GDPR. 24. As is clear from recital 148 GDPR, the GDPR stipulates that in every serious infringement - therefore

According to the respondent, the GDPR in fact implements Article 52 of the Charter and this follows from recital 4 of the GDPR. It considered that: “the processing

that therefore the exemption under Article 2(2)(c) GDPR applied. Article 2(2)(c) GDPR states that the GDPR will not apply if the data is processed in the course

point b) GDPR and Article 100, §1, 5 ° WOG to be reprimanded for the infringement of Article 25 (1) GDPR; b. on the basis of Article 83 GDPR and Articles

proceeding personal data under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Lursoft claim to be have such a legal basis under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. However, this was rejected by the Latvian

half-sentence GDPR and Art. 86 GDPR. These regulations indicate a certain information accessibility of the GDPR. According to recital (EC) 154 to Art. 86 GDPR, the

provided with a copy of their medical file free of charge under Article 15(3) GDPR, even when such a file includes X-rays and magnetic resonance images which

protection regulations, and taking into account the following: FACTS FIRST: On 10/19/20, the claimant sent this Agency a written statement of claim, stating, among

(articles 12 and 14 of the GDPR); A breach of his right of access (article 15 of the GDPR); A breach of Article 28 of the GDPR with regard to its status

conduct infringed Article 6(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 83(5)(a) GDPR for the following reasons. Article 6(1) GDPR provides that the processing of

light of provisions (Article 4 (15) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR) the vaccination of a person against Covid-19 implies the provision of a health

(6) Decision no. UOOU-05284 / 19-20 of 2 June 2020 was then a decision President of the Office Ref. UOOU-05284 / 19-36 of 19 August 2020 confirmed. However

her". 8. Recital 32 of the GDPR materially states that "When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them". Recital 42 materiallyprovides

and 7(1) GDPR; Articles 5, paragraph 2 and 24 GDPR; Articles 12, paragraph 1, j° 13 and 14 GDPR; Article 5(1)(e) GDPR; and Article 7(3) GDPR. - order the

less severity depending on the effects 86 GDPR, art. 16 87 GDPR, art. 17.1.a 88 GDPR, art. 18.1.a 89 G.HAAS, GDPR legal guide: the regulations on the protection

data in violation of the GDPR. The DPA also held that Google had processed personal data in violation of Articles 5(1)(b) and 6 GDPR by sending notifications

in both Belgium and the UK, violated Article 15(1) GDPR, Article 15(3) GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR GDPR for deleting data instead of providing access to

her”. 7. Recital 32 of the GDPR materially states that “When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them”. Recital 42 materially

use and disposal of hardcopy documents. BN-19-1- 281, BN-19-3-68, BN-19-3-233, BN-19-3-381, BN-19-5-5, and BN-19-6-237 all concern instances where hardcopy

on treatments or procedures (see Recital 63 GDPR). b. If the data is processed in accordance with Article 28 of the GDPR, I request that you additionally

organizational measures to ensure data protection by design and by default (Article 25 GDPR)? The DPA held that Robinsons-Tour and Next Time Media Agency did not implement

Regarding the substitution of the fine with a reprimand, the DPA alluded to Recital 148 GDPR which stated that the applicable sanctions for the violation of the

to this assertion stating that, under § 19 of the forth Austrian Covid-19 Protection Ordinance (§ 19 4. COVID-19-SchuMaV), it had to check whether customers

16, 2020 - An 14 K 19.00464 Rn 19 ; VG Mainz, judgment of January 16, 2020 - 1 K 129/19.MZ Rn 27 and of July 22, 2020 - 1 K 473/19.MZ, Rn 20, 23). This

One on hand, the APDCAT stated that under Article 2 GDPR, Article 4(1) GDPR and Recital 14 GDPR, any information regarding administrative procedures for

Legislative Decree 10 August 2018, n. 101, with provision no. 515, of December 19, 2018 (web doc. No. 9069637, hereinafter "Deontological Rules"); GIVEN the

Article 82(1) GDPR, because the controller unlawfully disclosed the data to its customers. The court also held that under Article 82 GDPR the violation

...... ............................19 3.5.5 Is the processing necessary for the legitimate interest?.............19 3.5.6 The balancing of interests for

of application of Article 58(2)(c) GDPR. On 19.02.2019, the data subject sent an access request under Article 15 GDPR to a controller (an Austrian municipality)

Art. 15 (3) GDPR. According to Art. 95 GDPR, provisions of the ePrivacy Directive, which pursue the same goal as the provisions of the GDPR, take precedence

of Article 7(4) GDPR. Based on these considerations, the AEPD issued a €2,000,000 fine against Caixabank for infringing Article 6 GDPR in relation to Article

under Article 4(1) GDPR. Moreover the court found that the controller can refuse to act on the request according to Article 12(5)(b) GDPR, because the request

accordance with the GDPR (Art. 24(1) GDPR), that data protection principles such as data minimisation are effectively implemented (Art. 25(1) GDPR) and that a

violated the "data protection by default" principle under Article 25(2) GDPR. On 19 August 2021, the Northern Savonia Hospital District (controller) notified

82 (1) GDPR (Kuhling/Buchner/Bergt, GDPR, 3rd edition, Article 82 paragraph 17 ff; Wolff/Brink/Quaas; BeckOK, data protection law, Article 82 GDPR paragraph

done using a water meter and its readout. Article 12(5) GDPR in conjunction with Article 18(1)(d) GDPR does not prevent the charging of an administrative fee

vaccine passport or a negative test for Covid-19 to access a table tennis test site violated Article 9(2) GDPR, The controller was fined 10.000 euros. Federación

. 7. Recital 32 of the GDPR materially states that “When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them” . Recital 42 materially

society as required under Article 23(1)(j) GDPR. Moreover, the exception provided for under Article 6(4) GDPR which allows processing for different purposes

several GDPR violations by the controller, and went on to assess whether they could give rise to the award of immaterial damages under Article 82 GDPR also

regard to the modalities in Article 12 GDPR. Recital 58 of the GDPR states that information under Article 14 GDPR can be provided in electronic form, for

Paragraph 3 GDPR specifies content requirements for an appropriate legal basis, which are clear and precise in the context of recital 41 of the GDPR and should

Article 78(1) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 57 of the GDPR. Article 57 of the GDPR. The scope of Article 57 of the GDPR is indeed open. Pursuant

valid from 02/01/1991 VStG § 19 today VStG § 19 valid from 01.07.2013 last changed by Federal Law Gazette I No. 33/2013 VStG § 19 valid from 01.01.2012 to

Letter a GDPR). (Article 58 Paragraph One Litera a, GDPR). From this provision, taken together with Article 31 of the GDPR, Article 31 of the GDPR results