Search results

Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 25 GDPR, p. 577 (Oxford University Press 2020). Although Article 25(1) mentions that the measures

mechanism referred to in Article 63 GDPR (Article 28(8) GDPR). The Commission has made use of its power under Article 28(7) GDPR and published standard contractual

registered letter in violation of article 15 (1) cond. 12 par. 2, 3 and 4 GDPR and c) 30,000 euros for violation of Article 25 (1) GDPR because it did not in practice

processing of personal data meets the legal requirements, in breach of Article 25(1) GDPR. Finally, the DPA stated that the response to the access request was

Vodafone S.p.A in violation of the following GDPR provisions: Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) and Article 25(1): for failing to implement control systems of

the GDPR. In light of this, the Court agreed with the DPA that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article

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

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

comply with section 5.1(b) of the MDR, and for failure to comply with section 5.1(a) of the MDR. and 5.1(b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the MDR

the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

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

necessary. For the intentional infringement of Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 5(1)(a), (c), and (e) GDPR, the authority imposed a pecuniary penalty of €14

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

coming into force of the GDPR, the DPA found that the company still did not comply. How do Article 5(1)(e) and Article 25(1) GDPR apply to archives? The

of natural persons who decisions, in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR. The DPA examined the rules for the removal of identification data displayed

HDPA held that COSMOTE violated Article 25(1) GDPR, because the processing for statistical purposes under Article 89(1) GDPR should have been done with anonymised

Commissioner held that CYTA violated articles 5 (1), 24 (1) and (2), 25 (1) and (2) and 32 of the GDPR and instructed CYTA to establish such security measures

violation of article 5 par. 1 item. e' of the GDPR, b) reprimanded the OASA for the violations of the provisions of article 25 par. 1 and article 35 par. 1 of the

information provided to data subjects was less than that required by the GDPR, and the information was not provided in an intelligible and easily accessible

information in accordance with Article 13 GDPR. In addition, the HDPA found that the Ministry violated the obligation of Article 35(9) GDPR in relation to the expression

€283,000). It held that the controller violated Articles 25(1), 32(1)(b), 32(1)(d) and 32(2) GDPR by not taking appropriate technical and organizational

was fined €380,000 for violating Articles 6(1), 13(1) and (2), and 25(1) and (2) and 32(1)(a) and (d) GDPR. A sports betting agency, acting as the controller

of Article 5, Article 6, and Article 25 GDPR. It ordered the controller to comply with the data subject's erasure request pursuant to Article 17(1)(d)

design and default. The CNIL ordered the Ministry to comply with Article 24 and 25 GDPR regarding the collection and further processing of personal data

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

even though Article 32 GDPR stipulates such a technical measure for certain emails. It is important to note that only Article 6(1)(a) GDPR allows for such

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

and Article 58(2)(b) in connection with Article 5(1)(f), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1) and (2) of 2 of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European

the basis of Article 58, paragraph 2, point b) GDPR and Article 100, §1, 5 ° WOG to be reprimanded for the infringement of Article 25 (1) GDPR; b. on the

According to Article 72.1 LOPDGDD, the violation of data processing principles under Article 5 GDPR was considered very serious. Considering Article 25(1) GDPR

5- □ 1-i; -J L ..J Brussels-2020 Court of Appeal / AR / 1333 p. 3 breach of articles 5.1.a} and 5.1.b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the GDPR read

controller had violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 17(1) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 14 GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR, and Article

with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 33 paragraph. 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 of the Regulation

(2) § 23, § 25, 25 / G. § (3), (4) and (6), 25 / H. § (2) paragraph 25 / M. § (2), 25 / N. §, 51 / A. § (1), Articles 52-54. §- in Section 55 (1) - (2), Sections

regard to Client 1 that data management - infringed Article 25 (1) to (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation, - infringed Article 32 (1) (b) of the General

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

sec. 1 lit. a) and art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32

data on the basis of Article 6.1.e GDPR ? - Did the administration sharing confidential data with a third party violates article 25 GDPR ? - Should the administration

processing carried out is in violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32 GDPR and Article 35 GDPR. Especially, the controller cannot exclude

artikel 100, §1, 2° WOG de buitenvervolgingstelling bevelen, of de klacht seponeren overeenkomstig artikel 95, §1, 1° of artikel 100, §1, 1° WOG (naargelang

5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 5 sec. 2, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. b, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 38 sec. 1, art. 39 sec. 1 lit. b and

the performance of a contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) and for legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Article 6(1)(b) GDPR In its original draft decision

violated Article 25(1) GDPR by failing to take measures designed to implement the accuracy principle in the database, and Articles 5(2) and 24(1) GDPR by failing

violation of article 17 in combination with article 21 par. 3 and article 12 paragraph 3 of the GDPR and article 25 paragraph 1 of the GDPR. For its judgment

This amounted to a violation of Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d) GDPR, Article 32(2) GDPR. Consequently, the DPA fined the

violating Article 32(4) jo Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR (security of processing). In addition, a fine of €5,000 for violating Article 25(1) GDPR (data protection

laid down in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In this context, the DPA referred to Article 25(1) GDPR (data protection by design) and Recital 78 GDPR. As a result

risk analysis. Therefore, the DPC found a violation of Article 25(1), 25(2), 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(f) GDPR, ordered Meta to comply with the provisions and imposed

thereby violating Article 13(2) GDPR. The investigated controllers did not comply with the storage limitation principle under Article 5(1) GDPR because the data