Search results

regulation, and see Article 6(3) as a clause that sets out concrete requirements for this regulation. Finally, another group of authors that does not see these requirements

Article 35 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck, 36th edition). See Körffer, in Paal, Pauly, GDPR BDSG, Article 58 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2021)

between states, see WP29, Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data, 20 June 2007, p. 23 (available here). See Recital 27 sentence 1 GDPR. See Recital 27

the factual requirements are met and there are no grounds for exemptions (see below). The assessment must be conducted without delay and its outcome promptly

involved, which systems are used, etc.), and the purposes of the processing. See commentary on Article 24 GDPR. Finally, controllers and processors should

The provision lists a non-exhaustive set of criteria to carry out the task (see below). The SA must first decide whether to impose a fine at all. This follows

further details on the various legal bases for processing personal data please see the commentary on Article 6(1) GDPR. Example: The newly appointed data protection

In this sense, this agreement could not be concluded by email. See, Martini, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 27, margin numbers 17-20 (C.H.Beck 2021

teleological reading fulfils the requirements already stipulated by Article 47 CFR (see below for more on what constitutes an effective judicial remedy under Article

witness whistle-blower from retaliation, or conversely, the latter might see their right of access restricted to respect the privacy and data protection

3rd edition); Körffer in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 78 GDPR, margin numbers 3-5, (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd edition). See Recital 143, sentence 7 GDPR:

GDPR. The controller also has to consider the purposes of the processing. See the commentary on Article 5(1)(b) GDPR for more details on the purpose of

follows from Article 25(2). The addressee of the provision is the controller. See the commentary under paragraph 1 for more details on this point. To ensure

C‑673/17, para 47). See Bergt in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 81 GDPR, margin number 7 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). See Bergt in Kühling, Buchner

requested SA to communicate the results of the request or, if not possible (see paragraph 2 above), at least an update on the progress of the procedure, in

individuals and their rights under the GDPR see also CJEU C-293/12 - Digital Rights Ireland, paragraph 68, available here. See Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker

number 4 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). See, Articles 3(4) and 4 Collective Redress Directive (EU) 2020/1828. See Moos, Schefzig in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO

information is still "intelligible". For unfounded or excessive request, see also paragraph 5 below. The requirement for clear and plain language means

security policy of the Union” is also excluded from the scope of the Regulation (see subsection (b) below). Article 2(2)(b) excludes the applicability of the GDPR

judicial review (see commentary to Article 78 GDPR). Handling of a complaint should be performed within a reasonable period of time (see also Article 77(2)

the video to- next out of focus and from second 0:11 in full-body shot to see how she in a car that reads "We are looking for nurses" and an audio Overlay

German Original Source: Justiz-Online NRW (in German) Initial Contributor: pau.see

issues, the BVwG issued a separate decision (see here). 2) The CJEU has already assigned a case number: C-487/21 (see here and here). Share blogs or news articles

a concrete negative impact on its legal position in the award procedure (see Müller, in: MüKoEuWettbR, 4th ed. 2022, VgV § 8, marginal no. 49). cc. With

"punitive damages" (see in detail Spitzer, ÖJZ 2019/76, 629 [635 f]; also Frenzel in Paal/Pauly, DSGVOBDSG3 Art 82 DSGVO Rz 10; see also OLG Innsbruck MR

can only be Article 6 (1) sentence 1 lit e) DSGVO (see b) or Article 6 (1) sentence 1 lit f) DSGVO (see c), the requirements of which, however, the Senate

"punitive damages" (see in detail Spitzer, ÖJZ 2019/76, 629 [635 f]; also Frenzel in Paal/Pauly, DSGVOBDSG3 Art 82 DSGVO Rz 10; see also OLG Innsbruck MR

requirements for creating an appropriate standard of data security in general mine (see 3.). The requirements of Art. 32 GDPR are therefore at the disposal of the

allowed in this regard - see below - the plaintiff is free to have the decision reviewed by the Federal Court of Justice (see Cologne Higher Regional Court

Germany for the registry offices (see Baumann, StAZ 1968, 337 f.), but not - as here - for registration authorities (see VG Stuttgart, decision of 18.08

have an absolute binding effect (see also the Court's judgment of 14 February 2019 - C-345/17, NVwZ 2019, 465 para. 58), see ECJ of 19 June 2014 - C-345/13

outside of F *****" you can see the companies that have sent data, but not which data the companies have sent; you can't see the raw data either. [94] A

advertising content for you. By suppressing marketing cookies, you will continue to see the same amount of advertising, but it may be less relevant to you. For more

statutory judge within the meaning of Article 101.1 sentence 2 of the Basic Law (see BVerfGE 73, 339 <366>; 82, 159 <192>; 126, 286 <315>; 128, 157 <186 et seq

of personal data? Concerning the appeal against decisions 1, 3, 4 and 5 (see above: "Decisions by the Austrian Data Protection Authority"), the BVwG had

plaintiff's interest in the coveted conviction to be at least € 2,000.00 (see OLG Stuttgart GRUR-RS 2021, 20480). 9 2. The proceedings were not to be suspended

law that such an effort can stand in the way of a request for information (see ECJ, judgment of 19.10.2016, C 582/14). On the one hand, the defendant does

another court as being prejudicial for the present proceedings is irreversible (see VwGH 13.9.2017, Ra 2017/12/0068). Catchwords Request for information Suspension

have an absolute binding effect (see also the Court's judgment of 14 February 2019 - C-345/17, NVwZ 2019, 465 para. 58), see ECJ of 19 June 2014 - C-345/13

these provisions inapplicable in lack of an opening clause under the GDPR (see W211 2210458-1 and here). Hence the DSB only assesed the lawfulness of processing

judgment - see 6 Ob 63/21i (in German). On 03.09.2021, the Austrian Federal Administrative Court also stayed a procedure on the same issue - see W211 2230221-1

aim at processing in accordance with the provisions of the DPA (see Martini in Paal/Pauly, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung [2017], Art. 32 para. 28). This security

rules of the GDPR and the principles anchored therein have not been violated (see the decision of October 31, 2018, GZ DSB-D123.076 / 0003-DSB / 2018). According

so that Section 1 (1) DSG does not apply at all. But even if one were to see an application of § 1 DSG, the complaint would not be successful: The (simple

later than within one month, see Kühling / Buchner / Bäcker, 3rd edition 2020, GDPR Art. 14 marginal no. 33; Paal / Pauly / Paal / Hennemann, 3rd edition

specific (see 1.). The defendant's new submission, which she made in the grounds of appeal, must be taken into account in this respect (see 2.). The fact

legal remedies to the notification in the final decision of October 5, 2020 (see Art. 77 Para. 2 DS- GMO). Paragraph 19 b) It is disputed whether a further

one of the objectives listed in a taxonomy and meet certain requirements (see only Haidinger in Knyrim, DatKomm, Art 23 Vorheriger SuchbegriffDSGVONächster

lawfulness of a 10 year storage period is not relevant for the case at hand (see margin number 21 of the judgment:"In the present case - as already stated

weighed up. See Paal, in: Paal / Pauly (ed.), General Data Protection Regulation / Federal Data Protection Act, 2nd edition 2018, Art. 23 marg. 31; see also Peuker