Search results

access (Article 15 GDPR), rectification (Article 16 GDPR), erasure (Article 17 GDPR), restriction (Article 18 GDPR), notification (Article 19 GDPR) or data

longer of importance to society. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(c) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to comply with the data subject's

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

on the merits in accordance with Article 98 et seq. DPAA, to: - pursuant to Article 58.2(c) of the GDPR and Article 95(1)(5) of the DPAA , to order the

imposed two corrective measures on the controller according to Article 58(2)(c) and (d) GDPR and the fine of 14,420.4 lei, the equivalent of the amount of

the GDPR within 1 month starting from the receipt of this decision; c)ordered the company comply with the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR, as

complete, clear and reasonably certified pursuant to both Article 58(2) GDPR. and Article 21 of N. 2472/1997. Notably, the DPA focused only on the portion

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

subjects had not suffered any financial harm. Furthermore, as per Article 58(2)(c) and (d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to comply with the data subjects’

objection for data processing under Article 21 GDPR and the principle of liability under Article 2(4) GDPR and Article 24 GDPR. The complainant, the data subject

subject's request to remove the search result link as per Article 58(2)(c) GDPR? Article 87 GDPR gives Member States the right to specify conditions for

Protection Officer shall instruct the controller in accordance with Article 58 (2) (c) of the General Data Protection Regulation to comply with the applicant's

procedure, the AEPD understood that the defendant could have breached article 58(2)(c) GDPR: on the basis of the available evidence, the defendant did not answer

violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR, Article 12(6) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. In accordance with Article 58(2)(c) GDPR

with Article 5 (1) (c) of the General Data Protection Regulation; and (3) whether the controller should be ordered in accordance with Article 58 (2) (c)

Thus, it violated Article 15 GDPR. The Datatilsynet issued an injunction and ordered the company, as foreseen under 58(2)(c) GDPR, to carry out a concrete

Belgian DPA used Article 58(2)(c) GDPR to order a controller to comply with an erasure request of a data subject pursuant to Article 17 GDPR after it failed

circumstances of the specific case (art. 58, par. 2, letter i) Regulation). 4. Order for an injunction. Pursuant to art. 58(2)(i) of the Regulation and art. 166(3)

in line with Article 13 GDPR. On the DSB's request, the controller declared R*** Hotels GmbH as its representative under Article 27 GDPR and sent a reply

data within the meaning of Article 4(2) in the course of proceedings under both Articles 77 and 78 of the GDPR. Article 4(2) refers to disclosure as a

corrective powers under Article 58(2) GDPR, namely 58(2)(d) and (g) GDPR, may be exercised by the DPA on its own motion. Article 58(2)(c) GDPR, on the other hand

violation of Articles 5,15 GDPR, 33 Law 4624/2019. Thus, the HDPA, making use of its corrective powers of Article 58(2)c GDPR, ordered the College to provide

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

complaint with Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. However, Article 58(2)(b) GDPR contains the authority of the DPA to reprimand a controller. Article 58(2)(c) GDPR contains

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

within the meaning of Article 100 of the WOG. The Disputes Chamber has thus decided, on the basis of Article 58.2.c) GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of the WOG

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

within the meaning of Article 15 (4) of the Data Protection Regulation. Decision and justification of the EDPS Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (c) of the Data Protection

accuracy and updating of data as provided in Art 5 par 1 let d GDPR. Following Art 58 2 c and g GDPR, the Guarantor finds the data subject´s complaint well-founded

the request. On 23 July 2021, the DPA exercised its power under Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and ordered the controller to comply with the access request. However

concluded a prima facie breach of Article 15 GDPR and Article 17 GDPR in combination with Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 12(4) GDPR, because the controller did

with complete information pursuant to Article 15(1) GDPR. Therefore, using its power laid down in Article 58(2)(c) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to

of the ACL: - to order the data controller, pursuant to Article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of the LCA, to comply with the complainant's

investigation in accordance with article 91 2. In this regard, it follows from the text of the contested decision: Pursuant to Article 95, §2 of the Law of 3 December

controller has acted in violation of Article 12.3 and 12.4 GDPR, as well as Article 17.1 GDPR. 2 1 Article 12 GDPR […] 3. The controller shall provide the

termination. Article 5(1)(c) was therefore also violated. The DPA concluded that Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c) and 6(1) were violated and pursuant Article 58(2)(c) ,

set out by Article 12(4) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller to comply with the access request pursuant Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and Article 95(1)(5) LCA

hearing on the merits in accordance with Article 98 ff. WOG , at: - on the basis of Article 58.2, c) GDPR and Article 95, §1, 5° WOG, to order the defendant

result, the controllers acted in 1 2 3 contravenes Articles 5.2 and 12.2 GDPR, as well as Article 17.1 GDPR. 1 Article 5.2 GDPR. The controller is responsible

pursuant to Article 12(2) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller to comply with the access request pursuant to Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and Article 95(1)(5) LCA

pursuant of Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. The DPA further ordered the controller to comply with the access request pursuant of Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and to deal

sufficient by the supervisory authority. Therefore, pursuant to Article 58(2)(c) and (g) GDPR, the Italian DPA ordered the controllers to take action in order

it and the applicants, i.e. on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. However, pursuant to Article 17(3)(e) GDPR, the right to request from the controller the

according to Article 19 GDPR. The DPA held that the controllers could have breached Article 21(2) GDPR, Article 21(3) GDPR and Article 17(1)(c) GDPR in combination

based on Article 95, § 1, 5° WOG (law establishing the Belgian DPA) and Article 58(2)(c) GDPR. This order was not a final decision in light of article 100 WOG

flows by the SA pursuant to Article 58(2) GDPR or failure to provide access in violation of Article 58(1) GDPR. Article 83(6) GDPR is a superfluous provision

possible "legitimate interest" under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Equally to Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(2) and (3) GDPR require that Union or Member State

its decision on the following legal bases: Article 12, Article 15, Article 57(1)(f), Article 58(2)(c) and Article 77(1) of the Basic Data Protection Regulation

consent under Article 6(4) GDPR and further processing for a compatible purpose under Article 6(4) GDPR. See the commentary on Article 6(4) GDPR for details

(see Article 52 GDPR) and shall be provided with various competencies (Articles 55, 56 GDPR), tasks (Article 57 GDPR) and powers (Article 58 GDPR). For