Search results

requirements, public officials can be appointed as temporary judges; and (v) the Minister of Justice prescribes the external and internal organisation

CJEU - C-280/22 Kinderrechtencoalitie Vlaanderen and Liga voor Mensenrechten v Belgian State Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article

consent of the owner of the data. (v) it does not establish a simple and free procedure for the member to revoke his or her (v) no simple and free procedure

CJEU - C‑293/12 and C‑594/12 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung

CJEU - C-741/21 GP v juris GmbH Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 29 GDPR Article 82(1) GDPR Article 82(2) GDPR Article 82(3)

CJEU - C-768/21 TR v Land Hessen Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 57(1) GDPR Article 57(1)(f) GDPR Article 58(2) GDPR Article

be postponed until the Court of Justice had ruled on cases C-446/21 Schrems v Facebook Ireland and C-21/23 Lindenapotheke which at the time were both prelimary

Rechnungshof v. Österreichischer Rundfunk and others; Neukomm and Lauermann v. Österreichischer Rundfunk, para. 65; CJEU, C-524/06, Huber v. Germany, December

CJEU - C‑333/22 Ligue des droits humains ASBL, BA v Organe de contrôle de l’information policiè Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law:

was confirmed in Killock & Veale and others v Information Commissioner [2021] UKUT 299 (AAC) and Leighton v Information Commissioner (No.2) [2020] UKUT

CJEU - C‑446/21 Maximilian Schrems v Meta Platforms Ireland Limited Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(b) GDPR Article

investigated. 9. According to the preliminary work of the above-mentioned law (LaV 16/2013 vp), the committee considers the extension of criminal background research

OVG SH, B.v. 26.3.2012 - 2 LA 21/12 - juris note 8 f.; SächsOVG, B.v. 10.1.2020 - 6 B 297/19 - VerkMitt 2020, No. 36 = juris note 3; NdsOVG, B.v. 11.7.2012

(see Niemietz v Germany (1992) 16 EHRR 97, para 29; [Volkov v Ukraine (Application No 21722/11) (2013) 57 EHRR 1, para 165]; and [Bărbulescu v Romania (Application

a result. Following an analysis of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc (discussing Section 13 DPA 1998) and Gulati v MGN Ltd (discussing tort for misuse of private

in the terms required by article 32.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) V Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83.5 of the RGPD, the aforementioned

DT&V. . The DT&V has the file documents drawn up and collected by the respondent in the context of the assignment, so that the GDPR request to DT&V concerns

violation of the articles mentioned therein and, in particular, the following: " v) Failure to comply with the obligation to appoint a data protection officer

the Mayor and Aldermen of Uithoorn of 4 April 2019, reference 2018-084131; V. instructs the mayor and aldermen of Uithoorn to take a new decision within

Knuddels must also bear the costs of the proceedings (§§ 105, 107 OWiG 1.V.m. with § 464 (1), § 465 StPO). The procedural fee is 5% of the fine, but at

violation of the articles mentioned therein and, in particular, the following: v) Failure to comply with the obligation to appoint a data protection officer

Language(s): Finnish Original Source: Finlex (in FI) Initial Contributor: V

Ver- salis Spa v Commission, C-511/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:386, says: “ 94.Regarding, first of all, the reference to the Showa judgment Denko v Commission, cited

practice to see whether it is compliant with the SCHREMS II ruling and Chapter V of the GDPR. The decision is not yet published on the Council of State website

the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and inc v. AEPD and Mario Costeja ”C-131/12), according to which:“ There is a basic difference

see Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 6 October 2015, Schrems v DPC, C-362/14. 5 Compare mutatis mutandis the reasoning of the European Data

individual ( to that effect , Lingens v. Austria ; judgment of 18 July 2000 in vener v. Turkey ; judgment of 29 March 2001). Thoma v. Luxembourg, 29 March 2001

paragraph (3) shall not prejudice the rights and freedoms of other persons. V. On the right of presentation: The Federal Administrative Court is a court

Quadrature, A v Gewestelijke Stedenbouwkundige Ambtenaar van het Department ruimte Vlaanderen (Case C-24/19) [2021] CMLR 9 ("Gewestelijke"), and B v Latvijas

cases to date: Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini D.O.O [2015] EWHC 3380 (QB), [2016] 1 WLR 1414 (Sir Michael Tugendhat); Huda v Wells [2017] EWHC 2553

sentence 1 SGB V, insofar as this is necessary for the examinations, advice and expert opinions in accordance with sections 275 SGB V to 275d SGB V. According

be/publications/decision-quant-au-fond-n- 38-2021.pdf 8 CJEU, December 16, 2008, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-524/06, ECLI: EU: C: 2008: 724, para. 52. 9

personal data or third parties other than recipientsSecond plea for rectification v. request for erasureThird ground - permitted transfer of personal data to other

accredit the legitimacy for the treatment of the data of the claimant's clients. V Once the resolution proposal was formally notified, the respondent submitted

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

received a copy of the letter. The guidance service for the Romani people/Taters v/ A was informed about the case in a letter from the tribunal on 2 May 2023

to the requirements of the European human right protection (see also VwGH v. 03.09.2015, Zl. Ro 2015/21/0032). According to the case law of the European

International B.V., established in the Netherlands, it was determined that the lead supervisory authority for Ridetech International B.V. would be the Dutch

established case law of the Chamber: U.v. 8.8.2019 - AN 14 K 19.00272 - BeckRS 2019, 30069, marginal number 24; U.v. 7.12.2020 - AN 14 K 18.02503 - BeckRS

the present case is examined below in points 36 et seq. 8CEDH, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-524/06, December 16, 2008 Decision on the merits

situation as follows: "i) the e-mail message received by the Complainant is the V E-mail intended for the Intended Recipient; ii) the sheet of the Intended Recipient

burden to a natural person, a reprimand may be issued instead of a fine.” (Part V Fundamentos de Derecho). Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

a party in the probate proceedings before the district court V *** to GZ 3 A 1 * 8 / * v and before the Swiss division office of the city *** as inheritance

Costello J. (as he then was) in Barry v. Buckley [1981] I.R. 306, the observations of McCarthy J. in Sun Fat Chan v. Osseous Ltd. [1992] 1 I.R. 425 and the

proceedings is well-founded (BVerwG, U.v. 18 April 2013 - 10 C 9.12 - NVwZ 2013, 1344 marginal no. 22; BayVGH, B.v. 18 March 2020 - 7 CE 19.2143 - juris

and in view of the UI v Österreichische Post case discussed below. 8. UI v Österreichische Post (Case C-300/21) Decision 8.1 UI v Österreichische Post (Case

additional explanations (cf. BayVGH, B.v. 7.7.2014 - 7 C 14.1020; B.v. 13.7.2010 - 11 C 10.1212; B.v. 8.1.2007 - 9 C 05.532; B.v. 12.12.2006 - 9 C 06.2407 - juris

including the interaction mechanisms between the various factors;   Z V To Hon To E :G: D D t ot 3 of 13 m m F Fi Register number generates e 32022

In this decision, Blauw Research B.V., a market research agency (controller) had a processing agreement with NEBU B.V., a software provider (processor)

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V Penalty for violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD The balance of the circumstances

International B.V. and Yandex LLC to prohibit and suspend data transfers to the Russian Federation. Data Controllers Ridetech International B.V. (Yango taxi

the CRA process should be for ID&V. A Privacy Officer was involved in this at an early stage the nature and purpose of ID&V are determined. It has also been

NdsOVG, B.v. 16.1.2020 - 2 ME 707/19 - juris marginal 14; OVG NW, B.v. 16.1.2020 - 15 B 814/19 - juris marginal 31 et seq.; left open by OVG RP, B.v. 15.1

account of the GBA. The GBA summarizes as follows: 1. On June 14, 2019, Mr. V (hereinafter: 'the complainant') lodge a complaint with the Data Protection

Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Dutch Administration of Taxes, C-26-62, ECLI: EU: C: 1963: 1; CJEU judgment of 15 July 1964, Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L., C-6-64,

received personally by V. Sotirova. The principles of legality and good faith have been violated. This is because on September 4, 2021, V. Sotirova notified

out activities falling within the scope of application of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; c) carried out by a natural person in the exercise of exclusively

principles and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

information device a connection code or internet address to this information." V Allegations alleged This Agency has no evidence that the claimed party has

clear that she withdrew from her Twitter the document posted immediately. V Formally notified of the initiation agreement, the complainant has submitted

of the ECHR of 27 June 2017, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, CE:ECHR:2017:0627JUD000093113, section 165)”. In such a way, that

including the conditions for consent under articles 5, 6, 7 and 9; (...)". V The corrective powers available to the Spanish Protection Agency of Data, as

principles and guarantees set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V The LOPDGDD in its Article 77, Regime applicable to certain categories of the

Confirmed Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) Leave.EU and Eldon v Information Commissioner Original Language(s): English Original Source: ICO

the information required by Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. V In this case, it is claimed that the web page of the claimed person does not

plus B.V. from 1 July 2018 to 1 January 2019. This organization was your employer, but you worked for another company (********). P-Services plus B.V. has

requirement of independence (for example, Case C-288/12, European Commission v Hungary, EU: C: 2014: 237). Although the Data Protection Regulation does not

the European Union (ECJ) of 16-01-2019 in case C496 / 2017 Deutsche Post AG v. Hauptzollamt Koln. The existence of a legal basis (art. 6 GGP) does not release

third country to be lawful, it needs to have a valid legal basis under Chapter V of the GDPR. It pointed out that there was a discrepancy between the intended

Smolczevski v. Poland and M. L. and W. W. v. Germany, and the case of SEU Camera di commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore

and C. Vieira Guerra, in the capacity of authorized representative, –       V. Bottka and H. Kranenborg, in the capacity of authorized representative, on

Chapter V of the General Data Protection Regulation. For the transfer of personal data, there must be a transfer basis in accordance with Chapter V of the

inspection pursuant to art. 15 GDPR under I, III, IV and V 4.2. The requests under I, III, IV and V of [applicant] are aimed at gaining access to the personal

Justice, judgment of 17 December 2010 - V ZR 45/10, NJW 2011, 749, paragraph 8 ff; Judgment of March 1, 2013 -V ZR 14/12, NJW 2013, 1809 para. 12 et seq

Harvest ASA v European Commission, para. 344. See too CJEU, Case C-10/18 P, 64wi ASA v European Commission. GC, Case T-704/14, Marine Harvest ASA v European

particular, the controller would have transferred data in violation of Chapter V GDPR. Therefore, on 18.08.2020 the data subject filed a complaint against the

she then was) in the case of Doorstep Dispensaree Ltd v Information Commissioner (EA/2020/0065/V) in the context of MPNs [5]. The standard of proof to

5 WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p.25 6WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p.25 7WP 243 v.01, version

Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (Application no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72) 27Ibid., para. 82. 28Case of Öztürk v. Germany (Application

ber2019,TK v Asociaţiade Proprietari blocM5A -ScaraA,C-708/18,EU:C:2019:1064, paragraph37. 144 Judgment of 18 December 2008, Heinz Huber v. BundesrepublikDeutschland

fulfill their obligations under Section 18 Para. 1 and 2, Section 35 AVBWasserV (V.v. June 20, 1980, BGBl I p. 750 ) the following obligation to determine the

together with the actions of cessation of protection of consumer interests (Title V). And it is that the subjective and objective scope of law 34/2002 coincides

LOPDGDD, with respect to paragraph k) of the aforementioned Article 83.2 RGPD. V C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/9 Finally, the

the RGPD, it allows setting a penalty of 2,000 euros (two thousand euros). V Measures Article 58.2 of the GDPR establishes the corrective powers available

principles and guarantees set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58(2) of the GPRS provides: "Each supervisory authority shall have

breach of the articles mentioned in that one, and in particular the following: (v) Failure to comply with the obligation to appoint a data protection representative

the ban on using this data for the purposes described in article L. 1461-1 V of the public health code; compliance with the safety standards applicable

principles and guarantees laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58(2) of the GPRS states: 'Each supervisory authority shall have all

principles and guarantees laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58(2) of the GPRS states: 'Each supervisory authority shall have all

transferring personal data in the US without a legal basis in accordance with Chapter V GDPR. On 12 August 2020, the data subject visited the website politis.com.cy

all other tasks related to the protection of personal data (Article 57, 1., v) GDPR) .2 21. In that regard, the Disputes Chamber rules that Article 58WOG

accordance with § 9(1) Insolvenzordnung (Insolvency Code) and § 3(1)(2) InsBekV (Regulation on public notifications in insolvency proceedings on the internet)

Sentence 1, Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 11 lit. b) i. V. m. § 3 Abs. 1 Nr. 1, 4 UKlaG as well as from § 3a i. V. m. Section 8 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 3 No. 3 UWG

public scrutiny (cf. ECtHR judgment of 6 October 2022, Khural and Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan , CE:ECHR:2022:1006JUD005506911, § 41 and case law cited there)"

managing director, franchise partner X *** Gaststätten GmbH I Administration V *** Strasse 5 * 1 A-1 ** 0 Vienna U *** I * P *** I N *** I S *** Gaststätten

absence of any communication of information to the personconcerned.91. In its YS v. Minister voor immigratie of July 17, 2014, CJEU 28 highlights thescope of

main grievances7 Eur Court. HR, May 4, 2000, Rotaru v. Romania.8 Eur. HR, September 2, 2010, Uzun v. Germany, § 66.9 Joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and

after an immediately preceding legal dispute (VwGH v. 04.07.2016, Ra 2016/04/0014; see also BVwG v. 27.05.2020, Zl. W214 2228346-1/16E). In the light of

AlticeEuropeNV v Commission, T 425/18, ECLI:EU:T:2021:607, paragraph 362; Judgement of theGeneral Court of 5 October 2011, Romana Tabacchi v Commission,CaseT‑11/06

by the plaintiff (cf. also VG Hannover, U.v. 27.11.2019 - 10 A 820/19 - juris marginal note 19; VG Mainz, U.v. 17.12.2020 - 1 K 778/19.MZ - juris marginal

authorityAP Uber B.V. is the Dutch branch of Uber, Uber Technologies Inc. is located in the United States andistheparentcompanyof,among others,UberB.V.JointsettingUberB

registrations. Aegon Levensverzekering N.V. has submitted a statement of defence. The request regarding Aegon Levensverzekering N.V. [applicant] c.s. subsequently

; Herbricht, jurisPRITR/2020; LG Frankfurt, B.v. 15.10.2020 - 2-03 O 356/20 - juris LS; LG Darmstadt, U.v. 26.5.2020 - 13 O 244/19 - juris marginal number

principles and guarantees laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. V Article 58(2) of the GDPR provides: "Each supervisory authority shall have

prohibition of using this data for the purposes described in article L. 1461-1 V of the public health code; compliance with the security standards applicable

premises in order to manage any documentation that may arise at the last moment. (v) The offices will sign a delivery note showing the documentation from the office

Court of the Hague Trade team - interim relief judge Case number: C/09/581973 v KG ZA 19/1024 Judgment in preliminary relief proceedings of 13 November 2019

highest category provided for in the system of graduated administrative fines, v. the fact that, from the information brought to the attention of the Authority

information required by the articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " V In this case, it is taken into account that the respondent collected the personal

conditions of legality of the treatment in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

said treatment, or e) for the formulation, exercise or defense of claims". V Conclusion During the processing of this procedure, the claimed entity has

the LOPDGDD, regarding section k) of the aforementioned article 83.2 RGPD. V Finally, the sanction to be imposed should be graduated in accordance with

the photographs and names that have motivated this sanctioning procedure. V In accordance with the indicated precepts, and without prejudice to what results

legality of the treatment established in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. V This offense may be punished with a fine of a maximum of € 20,000,000 or, in

The District Court of Gelderland held that Mollie B.V. fulfilled its obligation regarding a data subject's access request. The data subject did not substantiate

the means of direct marketing and should be treated separately. The Company V. obtained from potential customers (i.e. persons applying for a loan) and customers

personal data processed unlawfully within seven days of the judgment date, V. V. Criteo to be Territos around - within seven days of the judgment date all

additional knowledge (cf. BayVGH, B.v. 7.3.2022 - 4 CS 21.2254 - BayVBl 2022 , 412 para. 27; Swiss Federal Supreme Court, U.v. 5.1.2021 - 1C_273/2020 - EuGRZ

court with conclusive arguments (cf. BVerfG, B.v. 23.6.2000 - 1 BvR 830/00 - NVwZ 2000, 1163/1164; B.v. 23.3 .2007 – 1 BvR 2228/02 – BayVBl 2007, 624)

personal data breach. The Italian DPA launched an investigation into Uber B.V., with registered office in Amsterdam, and Uber Technologies Inc., with registered

of EUR 28,859,291.41. 1 Brussels Court of Appeal (Market Court section), X. v APD, Judgment 2020/1471 of 19 February 2020 I PAGE 01-00003026574-0□09-□□34-□6-□1-

controller are notable. As stated in section 2.1, YOUR V is set under a law, namely the SUWI. U W V is a independent administrative body of the central government

scrapers. Unlike, for example, in the district court of Munich I with judgment v. 9.12.2021 - 31 O 16606/20, BeckRS 21/41707, the case decided is not sensitive

for obtaining credit (Federal Court of Justice, judgment of June 1, 1973 - V ZR 134/72, NJW 1973, 1793 under II 2) or for the management of tax matters

the supply of electricity and gas with Budget Thuis B.V., until 1 January 2022 called NutsServices B.V. (hereinafter: 'Budget Home'). From the trade register

signed by the defendant. This letter was co-signed by a second person, Mr. V, against whom the complainant had also testified complaint. As this person

determines that the new decision to be taken may only be appealed to the Division; V.      orders the Municipal Executive of Venlo to reimburse legal costs incurred

Language(s): Finnish Original Source: Finlex (in FI) Initial Contributor: V

III. declares the objection unfounded; IV. otherwise confirms the ruling; V. stipulates that this ruling will replace the decision of the Mayor and Aldermen

another procedure which also concerned the question of "categories of recipients v. actutal recipients" until the CJEU has delivered its judgment - see 6 Ob 63/21i

had been registered with CNPD or that data collection by it was authorized. v.-What, in our opinion and save the best opinion, determines that the evidence

in those cases where there are disputes between them and any interested." V In accordance with the provisions transcribed for the purpose of fixing the

until the 5th of the second following month or immediately following business. V In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, the This Resolution

articles 13 and 14 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and 12 of this organic law. " V C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/7 Each offense

principles and guarantees set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58(2) of the GPRS provides: "Each supervisory authority shall have

principles and guarantees laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58(2) of the GPRS provides: "Each inspecting authority shall have all

proceeding was notified sanctioner, without having made any allegations to it. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

cases in which there are controversies between those and any interested." V In accordance with the provisions transcribed in order to fix the amount of

be deduced that his email address was accessed by a non-authorized person. v. When the complainant informed the controller that someone else used his email

Spain, (iv) the advantages obtained by Twitter with such infringement, and (v) the sales volume of Twitter], the AEPD decided to impose a fine of €30,000

that moment ston_ den er different/ende people behind me at the checkout. A v them made the comment that it is not possible for a loyalty card to have the

International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko) and Others v Secretary of State for Transport, C-308/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:312), paragraph

should prove that the information communications indicated in Basis of Law V of the proposal for resolution formulated had been sent to the interested parties

4. 3R.v.St., June 29, 1993, e.g. Vedesca, no. 43,526. 4 MAREEN, D., The motives of the administrative legal act, TBP 2000, 20-38. See also: R.v.St., Droeshout

provisions such as in Section 30 (1) OWiG is not covered by Article 83 (8) DPA. V. The data subject, as data controller, has culpably violated Article 32(1)

transferring personal data to Meta Platforms Inc. (Meta U.S.) in violation of Chapter V of the GDPR. Meta Ireland had been transferring personal data to the U.S. despite

contract for this has been awarded to [company 1] B.V., now [company 1]. This agency has appointed [company 2] B.V. for the technology. enabled. 1.2 On July 16

Service71; Service71 uses YouForce as the HRM tool which is offered by RAET B.V. On 15 January 2018 the municipality denied appellant’s request to delete his

liability company NAUTADUTILH AVOCATS LUXEMBOURG S.AR.L., entered on List V of Table of the Luxembourg Bar Association, established and having its registered

legally defined. However, administrative acts within the meaning of § 35 VwVfG M-V and according to § 35 VwVfG fall unproblematically under it. The right of action

ruling in the Cumpănă si Mazăre v. Romania case, the Cârstea si Grecu v. Romania case, the Morar v. Romania case, the Barb v. Romania case, and such a limitation

Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgaspašvaldības SIA „Rīgas satiksme”, recital 28. See also CJEU, 11 December 2019, C-708/18, TK v Asociaţia de Proprietari

municipal executive of Almelo, defendant, authorized representative: mr. A.V. Abdul. Process sequence In the decision of 19 November 2019 (the primary decision)

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V Penalty for violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR For the purposes of deciding

B. VANDERGUCHT Registrar 1 yr\ • t i \ B. VANDERGUCHT ( 11\ 0. DUGARDYN \\ V - rPAGE 01-00002223628-0011-0011-01-01-� � � _J l

including conditions for con sentiment under articles 5, 6, 7 and 9; (…) ”. V The corrective powers available to the Spanish Protection Agency Data, as the

Telecommunications Law 9/2014, of May 9 (hereinafter,LGT) deals with Title III, Chapter V, the " Rights of end users" andgrants, among others, the right to oppose unwanted

of lawfulness of the treatment in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. ” V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each supervisory authority

any measures in order to prevent such issues to happen again in the future, (v) there has been no collaboration of the defendant with the AEPD, (vi) there

intentionality is accredited of the accused by way of gross negligence at least. V Article 83.5 RGPD provides the following: "Violations of the following provisions

of the treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679”. V Sanction proposal In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed

avoid creditors; - Pex Real Estate B.V. would have been set up to fall under the rules; - I Property Management B.V. would have been a relaunch of Spot

it has been submitted by Yards Deurwaardersdiensten B.V. Prior to Can Yards Deurwaardersdiensten B.V. invoke the GDPR? 3.       The answer to this question

(16/6/2015, Bsw 64569/09, Delfi AS v. Estonia, Rz 147; December 7, 2021, Bsw 39378/15, Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria, Rz 76, 95). The ECtHR

contract as well as his subsequent statements (see also LG Köln, Judgment v. v. 13.04.2016 - 28 O 384/15, p. 10, Annex B7, p. 159/168 of the original version)

decides on the data protection complaint of Roland A*** (complainant) from **** V***stadt of 4 June 2018 (in the version of the rectification of defects of 7

principles and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.” v In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

mentioned in this section, according to the circumstances of each case particular; V Violation of article 6.1 of the GDPR can be sanctioned with a fine of 20,000

treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)”. V Penalty for violation of article 6.1 of the GDPR The corrective powers available

submitted (under point II. 7., slightly expanded content also under point V . 1. to 3 of the pleading) as follows (emphasis not reproduced): "Even if the

articles 13 and 14 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and 12 of this organic law.” v In this case, this Agency has confirmed that the respondent requires his customers

RGPD: the violation of article 32, offense typified in its article 83.4.a). V In order to establish the administrative fine to be imposed, they must observe

the infraction of what is established in the art- article 19 of the RGPD. v conclusion The principle of presumption of innocence prevents imputing an administrative

in article 13 of the GDPR, allows a penalty of €2,000 (two thousand euro). V In accordance with the provisions of article 58.2 d) of the GDPR, according

TD/01965/2017 issued by the Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

responsibility of the responsible for the treatment to demonstrate its compliance. V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

494-24678, in so far as it dismisses [the appellant's] objection as unfounded; V. provides that the new decision to be taken by the Minister of Agriculture

alien to Union law (see ECJ Cases C407/14 , Maria Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA [ECLI:EU:C:2015:831]; also Case C99/15 , Liffers/Producciones

conditions for the treatment consent in accordance with articles 5, 6, 7 and 9; V Article 77 section 1 of the LOPDGDD provides: "The regime established in this

in those cases where there are disputes between them and any interested." V In deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and the amount of that

phase of the treatment and complementary to the duty of professional secrecy. V Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, considers that the infringement of “the principles

nature - the result would be to empty the principle of legality of its content. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (Federal Union of German Consumer Organizations, Germany) succesfully brought

the legal dispute Stuttgart - Plaintiff and appellant - attorney of record: v Belgium - Defendant and Appellant represented by: For damages following a breach

the rights established in articles 15 to 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.” v According to the available evidence, it must be taken into account that the

Data Protection Regulation) the Data Protection Regulation in Annexes III-V. and VI / A. Chapter 3 and Sections 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23-24

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbande - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband v Planet49 GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2019:801 ('Planet49'). The Dispute Chamber delivered

and December 19, 2019 end date of credit; ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (hereinafter: ABN ARMRO Bank N.V. (hereinafter: ABN AMRO) with the following registrations:

ECHR 27 October 1995, No 20190/92 (C.R. v. United Kingdom), paragraph 42 and ECHR 29 April 2002, No 2346/02 (Pretty v. United Kingdom), paragraph 65. 14 See

and transferred to the US, whether or not this transfer infringed Chapter V GDPR, also considering the Schrems II judgment. The investigation was limited

by Ms XX, through her lawyer, with this Authority against Bank Rewire EU B.V.; HAVING CONSIDERED the IMI cooperation procedure pursuant to art. 56 (n. 350195)

Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, 27 November 2007; judgment M.L. and W.W. vs. Germany, June 28, 2008 and Times Newspapers Limited v. United Kingdom judgment

is only the question of whether the main issue has been resolved (BayVGH, B.v. 1.12.2003 - 3 CE 03.2098 - NVwZ-RR 2004, 623 with further references; Schoch

cases (Sørensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark [GC], 2006, § 54). (Sigurður A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland, 1993, § 35; Vörður Ólafsson v. Iceland, 2021, § 45)]] 405

Protection Regulation fulfillment of the contract according to paragraph (v) EDM e-mails, on the other hand, promote the Data Controller's products and

OLG Dresden v. 12.1.2021, 4 U 1600/20, marginal no. 31 - juris; OLG Dresden v. 20.08.2020, 4 U 784/20, marginal no. 32 - juris; AG Hannover v. 09.03.2020

Rights in the case of Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary of 4 December 2018 No. 11257/16, in the cases of M.L. and W.W. v. Germany of 28 June 2018 Nos 60798/10

plaintiff's representative with an overview of the correspondence from DT&V and the municipality [place of residence] and of the IND and the municipality

('the case - law') cases) 5 II.1. NAIH / 2018/4939 / V In investigation case NAIH / 2018/4939 / V, the complainant complained that the a third party customer

No. NAIH/2018/795/V, and the Customer did not fulfill the in full the notice of the Authority with case file number NAIH/2018/795/4/V, therefore repeated

access or deletion requests from DPG Media Magazines B.V., formerly Sanoma Media Netherlands B.V.' dated September 29, 2021. In that report, the defendant

Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner and others [2008] EWHC 1084 and b.    South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner

that a “risk-based approach” to data transfers is not compatible with Chapter V of the GDPR. This judgement stems from one of the 101 complaints filed by the

contract between the Applicant and defendant by Mr X in the meeting of the Y e.V. on the evening of .... 2020 in Z-Straße in Frankfurt am Main. Order the defendant

Grand Chamber Judgment in the case of Bărbulescu v. Romania, (application no. 61496/08) 15 Case of Bărbulescu v. Romania, application no. 61496/08, 05 September

167See, inter alia, Case T-425/18, Altice Europe NV v Commission, para. 362; Case T‑11/06, Romana Tabacchi v Commission, para. 266. See too EDPB, Decision 01/2022

Court July 14, 2009, no. 23857C and 23871C of the docket, Pas. adm. 2022, V° Contentious procedure, n° 2 and other references cited therein). The interest

Section 44 (1) sentence 2 BDSG and Article 17 (1) c) EuGVVO i. V. m. Art. 18 (1) EuGVVO, each i. V. m. §§ 12, 13 ZPO. Since the provisions establish the same

purpose' . 39. This is also underlined by the Court in its judgment 'TK t v. Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5AScaraA' of 11 December 2019 : "The data subject's

legality of the treatment established in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.” v In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

as well as to provide means of proof of compliance with the requirements. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

cancelled in 2019, as the claimant did not acknowledge any relation with such, (v) the defendant declared that the only reason in order to check the claimant's

principles and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

subsequent new decision (see Senate decision of June 9, 2022 - 15 W 30/22, n.v.). In particular, the defendant is required to take immediate action to remove

measures to guarantee the protection of the personal data of its clients. v Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: "Each control authority will

the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and inc v. AEPD and Mario Costeja” C-131/12), according to which: “There is a basic difference

the above, the Authority has decided in accordance with the operative part. V. Other issues 7 The powers of the Authority are limited by the Infotv. Section

the data (iii); the rights in relation to their personal data (iv); cookies (v); security of their personal data (vi) and updating of their personal data

adequate measures to guarantee the security and confidentiality of the data. V In determining the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions of articles

character, were abandoned, allowing access to the data contained in them. V The GDPR defines personal data security breaches as “All those security violations

as well as to provide means of proof of compliance with the requirements. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

responsible or the possibility of exercising their rights in this regard. V The corrective powers available to the Spanish Agency for the Protection of

authority of control by contacting the Spanish Agency for Data Protection " V By virtue of the provisions of article 58.2 of the RGPD, the Spanish Agency

to as Brain, represented by mr. I.C.M.A. Reinders Folmer, against Ziggo B.V., which is located in Utrecht, that the defendant is on appeal and has lodged

the above, the Authority has decided in accordance with the operative part. V. Other issues The powers of the Authority are limited by the Infotv. Section

referred to the EMD's judgment in Satakunnan Markkinapörssi OY and Satamedia OY v. Finlandfrom 27 June 2017, case 931/13 which concerned a media company's publication

the treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

budget to give validity to the manifestation of the will of the affected party. V In the present case, the assessment of the set of factual elements in the sanctioning

character - the result would be to empty the content of the principle of legality. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

cases in which there are controversies between those and any interested." V In accordance with the provisions of the RGPD in its art. 83.2, when deciding

2016/679. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 8/9 V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

not based on the sources of Chapter V of the Regulation. Regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Chapter V, it should be borne in mind that according

Yordanov and Toshev (journalists) v. Bulgaria is similar. Upholding the opinion expressed above in Kasabova and Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, the Court adds that in

III (rights of the data subject), IV (responsibility literal and processor), V (transfer of personal data to third countries or to international organizations)

24 September 2019, G.C et al. v CNIL, ECLI:EU:C:2019:773, § 56 et seq. 18 ECtHR, 25 May 1988, 10737/83, Müller and Others v. Switzerland, § 27. Decision

personal data by V.M.P. Sp. z o.o. based in W, President of the Office for Personal Data Protection by establishing an infringement by V.M.P. Sp. z o.o.

Niemietz v. Allemagne, 16.12.1992 (rec. No. 13710/88), spec. Para. 29; Copland v. UK, 03.04.2007 (ref. No. 62617/00), spec. Par. 41; Bărbulescu v. Romania

Niemietz v. Allemagne, 16.12.1992 (rec. No. 13710/88), spec. Para. 29; Copland v. UK, 03.04.2007 (ref. No. 62617/00), spec. Par. 41; Bărbulescu v. Romania

fines" (judgment of the Court of 16 November 2000, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission, C‑286/98 P, ECR I‑9925, paragraph 66). Jurisprudence only requires

Data of social circumstances (hobbies, style of life, marital status, etc.), (V) Data on energy consumption and derived lifestyle habits of these , (VI) Economic

March 24, 2021. 9 1 Court of Justice December 20, 2017 (Case C-434/16 P. Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner) ECLI: EU: C: 2017: 994. 2 See also, among others

controller and the processor comply with the conditions set out in Chapter V of the General Data Protection Regulation and subject to other provisions of

affidavit. Mr. Doolin’s grounding affidavits were responded to by Mr. John V. O’Dwyer, Deputy Commissioner in the Office of the DPC. Mr. O’Dwyer’s first

Boom Legal 2020, p. 466 (V.E.T. Dorenberg). 121 H.J.J. Leenen et al., Health Law Handbook, The Hague: Boom Legal 2020, p. 466-469 (V.E.T. Dorenberg). See also

number and placement of the cameras, iv) the short term of the measure and v) the limited access to the personal data. 14. The respondent further explains

German Consumer Protection Association (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.), while the defendant is LinkedIn Ireland Unlimited Company, an Irish social

liability RAINBOG PHARMACY BAVEL B.V., established in Bavel, 2. the private company with limited liability PHARMACY TOLAKKER B.V., established in Bavel, 3. the

authorization must be less than three years old; is in accordance with Title V of this deliberation concerning the terms of data hosting and the absence of

Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA “Rīgas satiksme”, recital 28. See also CJEU, 11 December 2019, C-708/18, TK v/Asociaţia de Proprietari

representative: mr. S.G. Klatt (PrivacyPunt B.V.), against the private company NederWoon Verhuurmakelaars B.V., established in Apeldoorn, defendant party