Search results

Protection Agency must note that this is stated in Article 14 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 5 (5) (c) does not apply to the extent that the collection

Violation of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR The LfDI found a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR. When weighing the interests in the context of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, it must

but at the latest within one month, cf. article 14 no. 3, letter a. 5 According to article 14 no. 5, this article does not apply if: • The registered person

the terms of the French version of article 14.5.c) of the GDPR. 37. What is provided for in article 14.5. c) of the GDPR constitutes an exception to the right

out in Article 14(5)(a) and Article 14(5)(c) GDPR. The DPA rejected the controller's views as it argued that the exceptions in Article 14(5) GDPR should

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

BDSG, Article 5 GDPR, margin number 56 (C.H. Beck 2020) Resta, in Riccio, Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e Normativa Privacy - Commentario, Article 5 GDPR (Wolters

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

required under the GDPR (e.g. from a security perspective under Article 32 GDPR or as a means of data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) can get confused

further details see Article 14(1)(d) GDPR. Similar to the ex-ante information in Article 13(1)(e) and 14(1)(e) GDPR, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR requires the controller

are dealt with in Article 12(6) GDPR. It is unclear why Article 12(2) GDPR refers to Articles 15 to 22 GDPR, while Article 11(2) GDPR only refers to Articles

rights under the GDPR, when relevant information is provided. Article 13 GDPR embodies the principle of transparency in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, outlining the

additional benefit of Article 14(1)(d) GDPR may be questionable, if one agrees that Article 14(1)(c) (see commentary on Article 13(1)(c) GDPR) already requires

categories of data established in Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, Article 9(2)(c) GDPR, Article 9(2)(g) GDPR and Article 9(2)(i) GDPR directly correlate with a specific

Articles 13(2)(b) and 14(2)(c) GDPR. However, Article 21(4) GDPR specifies that the right to object under Article 21(1) and 21(2) GDPR (i.e. the right to

Datenschutzrecht, Article 32 GDPR, margin number 40 (C.H. Beck 2019). Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 32 GDPR, margin number 25 (C.H. Beck 2020

Category:Article 83 GDPR The wording “infringements of this Regulation” in Article 83(1) GDPR is slightly imprecise. In fact, Article 83(5)(d) GDPR also provides

affected since, under Article 28(1) GDPR, a controller shall only use processors providing the same standards under Article 25 GDPR. Manufacturers or producers

commentary to Article 60 GDPR, Article 61 GDPR, Article 62 GDPR, Article 63 GDPR, Article 64 GDPR, Article 65 GDPR, Article 66 GDPR and Article 56 GDPR. The SA

under Article 79 GDPR – or both. This flexibility allows for parallel proceedings under both Article 77 GDPR and under Article 79 GDPR. As the GDPR foresees

access (Article 15 GDPR), rectification (Article 16 GDPR), erasure (Article 17 GDPR), restriction of processing (Article 18 GDPR), notification obligation

purpose(s) (Article 5(1)(b)); lawfulness of processing (Article 6); adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary data (Article 5(1)(c)); limited

requirements of data minimization (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR). Under Article 30(1)(f) GDPR, where possible, the controller

which would be competent under Article 55(1) GDPR, as provided in Article 56 GDPR in connection with Article 60 GDPR. For more information see commentary

processing), Article 57 GDPR (tasks of SAs), Article 58 GDPR (powers of SAs), as well as Article 65 GDPR (dispute resolution by the board), Article 63 GDPR (consistency

accountability in Article 5(2) GDPR, paragraph (2) specifies further requirements in the general principle of transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, paragraph

BDSG, Article 38 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). WP29, ‘Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’)’, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01, 5 April

the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available here). EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’

categories of data under Article 9 GDPR or data relating to criminal convictions and offences under Article 10 GDPR. Article 37(2) GDPR allows for the designation

Regulation (GDPR), Article 82 GDPR, p. 1175. (Oxford University Press 2020); Quaas, in BeckOK DatenschutzR, Article 82 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2020

resolution mechanism under Article 65 GDPR in connection with Article 63 GDPR is triggered (Article 60 (4) GDPR). Article 60(2) GDPR clarifies that also in

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

exercise on their behalf all rights foreseen under Articles 77 and 78 GDPR and Article 20 of L. 4624/2019. The mandate shall be given with a specific written

11 (C.H. Beck 2020, 38th edition). Paal, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 2 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd edition). CJEU, Case C-25/17

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 72 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Nguyen in Gola, DS-GVO, Article 72 GDPR, margin numbers 1-2 (C.H. Beck 2018

(e.g. Article 25 (1) and (2), Article 28(1), Article 32(1) GDPR, Article 89(1) GDPR). These measures can also be regarded as measures under Article 24(1)

adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45 GDPR shall be used, when it exists; second, appropriate safeguards under Article 46 GDPR, such as binding corporate

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 33 GDPR, p. 642-643 (Oxford University Press 2020). According to Bensoussan, the drafting of Article 33 GDPR drew inspiration

falls outside the scope of Article 57 GDPR should be deemed inadmissible for the purposes of Article 31 GDPR. Article 31 GDPR can be read as a supporting

with the support of the EDPB in accordance with Article 70(1)(b) GDPR. According to Article 45(5) GDPR, the continued monitoring referred to in paragraph

Articles 13 or 14 GDPR. This can be drawn from the final sentence of Article 11(1) GDPR. It must be assessed with the utmost attention whether GDPR provisions

decisions in Category:Article 26 GDPR Petri, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 26 GDPR, margin number 12 (C.H. Beck 2019).

subject (Article 12(2) GDPR), respond and communicate the measures taken (Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR), the principle of freedom from costs (Article 12(5) GDPR)

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 19 GDPR, margin number 12 (C.H. Beck 2020). Dix, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 19 GDPR, margin

BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck

authority. The director did not have to inform the data subject under Article 14(5)(c) GDPR because the law clearly prescribed the acquisition or dissemination

important to note that Article 13(1)(f) GDPR, Article 14(1)(f) GDPR, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR and Article 15(2) GDPR, make specific reference to transfers of personal

64(2) GDPR). The remaining paragraphs of Article 64(3)-(8) GDPR lay down substantive rules and a detailed procedure for the EDPB’s opinions. Article 64(1) GDPR

Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke und Eifert. See for example CJEU in C-364/14 Schrems I and C-311/18 Schrems II. See Article 1(1) of

organisation), Article 45(5) GDPR (revocation, change of such determinations); Articles 46(2)(c) and (d) GDPR (standard protection clauses); Article 47(3) GDPR (formats

recitals for Article 97 GDPR. Article 97 GDPR imposes a "comprehensive reporting obligation" upon the Commission. The first paragraph of Article 97 GDPR sets out

Kommentar, Article 54 GDPR, margin number 12 and 13 (C.H. Beck 2017). Selmayr, in Ehmann, Selmayr, DS-GVO Kommentar, Article 54 GDPR, margin number 14 (C.H. Beck

this purpose (Article 52(4)(5)(6) GDPR). Elements of SAs' complete independence are also addressed in Article 53 GDPR and Article 54 GDPR. The CJEU in the

DatenschutzR, Article 80 GDPR, margin number 10 (C.H. Beck 2021, 36th edition). Bergt in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 80 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck

2016/679 [7] that: "Article 14, paragraph Article 14 (5) (c) allows for the abolition of the disclosure requirements in Article 14 (2). 1, 2 and 4, in

exchange of knowledge between them. This way, Article 50 GDPR expands the exhortation under Article 57(1)(g) GDPR that calls for cooperation between EU DPAs

into force of the GDPR. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1073. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023)

explicit wording of Article 81 GDPR does not limit its application to proceedings instigated either under Article 78 GDPR or Article 79 GDPR. Secondly, the

Category:Article 47 GDPR Kuner, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Update of Selected Articles, Article 68 GDPR, p

controller is subject, under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. In line with the general objectives of the GDPR, as outlined in Article 1 GDPR Article 16 TFEU, SAs are also

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin

consent pursuant to point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2) or on a contract pursuant to point (b) of Article 6(1); and (b) the processing is

from Article 6(1) GDPR and comply with the principles enshrined in Article 5 GDPR. Additionally, the processing will still be subject to other GDPR provisions

Regulation (GDPR), Article 75 GDPR, p. 1105 (Oxford University Press 2020). Dix, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 75 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck

However, Article 5(1)(d) GDPR gives the controller some leeway to continue processing inaccurate data - see more details under Article 5(1)(d) GDPR. Article

from any of the GDPR’s protections. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 39 GDPR Just as Article 38 GDPR, Article 39 GDPR also shows similarities

g, Article 95 GDPR, margin number 5 (C. H. Beck 2018, 2nd edition). Piltz, in Gola, Datenschutz-Grund-verordnung, Article 95 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.

protection law as enshrined in Article 5 GDPR must be complied with, and that the rights of the data subjects as found in the GDPR must also be available under

DatenschutzR, Article 73 GDPR, margin number 2 (C.H. Beck 2020, 36th edition). Brink, Wilhelm, in BeckOK DatenschutzR, Article 73 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck

access (Article 15 GDPR), rectification (Article 16 GDPR), deletion (Article 17 GDPR), restriction of processing (Article 18 GDPR), objection (Article 21 GDPR)

BDSG, Article 69 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Dix in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 69 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck

(Articles 42(7) GDPR, 43(5), and 58(2)(h) GDPR). According to the EDPB, where a DPA is to conduct certification pursuant to Article 42(5) GDPR, it will have

decisions pursuant to Article 65 GDPR (Article 70(1)(t) GDPR). Article 68 GDPR is the first of nine Articles (Articles 68-76 GDPR) governing the EDPB set

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 59 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck 2020). Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 59 GDPR, margin number 7 (C.H. Beck 2020

compliance with the GDPR under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR or even ban it under Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. Therefore, complaints under Article 77 GDPR should extend to

Regulation (GDPR), Article 89 GDPR, p. 1250 (Oxford University Press 2020). Eichler, in BeckOK DatenschutzR, Article 89 GDPR, margin number 12-13 (C.H. Beck

with the GDPR (Article 31 GDPR). Direct liability of the representative is limited to the obligations set out in Article 30 and Article 58(1)(a) GDPR. Article

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 71 GDPR, margin number 2 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd edition). Dix in Kühling, Buchner, GDPR BDSG, Article 71 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck

(3) GDPR), inform him or her about the measures taken (Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR), the right to receive this service free of charge (Article 12(5) GDPR)

objections pursuant to Article 92(5) GDPR. Article 92(5) GDPR imposes a further condition for the delegation of power, in line with Article 290(2)(b) TFEU. A

meaning Recital 86 GDPR). However, Article 34 GDPR does not provide a specific deadline of 72 hours as is the case in Article 33 GDPR. Instead, timelines

leeway exists only in cases of Article 64(2) GDPR but not the context of Article 70(2) GDPR. According to Article 70(3) GDPR, the EDPB is obligated to “forward

conduct under Article 83 GDPR should be excluded from penalties issued under Article 84 GDPR is debated. Whilst the wording of the GDPR is simply unclear

Category:Article 74 GDPR For more on this point, see Article 72 GDPR. Dix in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 74 GDPR, margin number 7 (C.H. Beck

related decisions in Category:Article 76 GDPR Dix, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 76 GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Docksey

clear from the wording of Article 41(1) GDPR. Article 41(1) GDPR does not define accreditation. Nonetheless, Article 41(2) GDPR provides a criterion against

lead SA (“LSA”) (Article 65(1)(b) GDPR), and where a SA is not following an opinion of the EDPB (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR). Article 65(1)(a) GDPR addresses the

requirements. Although Article 40(5) GDPR mentions that the competent DPA will be determined through the application of Article 55 GDPR, the GDPR does not provide

DatenschutzR, Article 78 GDPR, margin number 8 (C.H. Beck 2020, 36th edition); Körffer in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 78 GDPR, margin number 2, C.H. (C.H. Beck

opening clause under Article 88(1) GDPR, any rules introduced must meet the criteria imposed by Article 88(2) GDPR. Lastly, Article 88(3) GDPR imposes an obligation

possibility offered to them under Article 66 GDPR. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 66 GDPR CJEU, C-645/19, 15 June 2021, Facebook

Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. CJEU, Case C‑28/08, European

accordance with Article 58(1) GDPR. Article 90 GDPR was drafted with a view to regulate potential conflicts between the application of the GDPR on the one hand

163 GDPR). Tosoni in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 98 GDPR, p. 1315 (Oxford University Press 2020). Case C- 528/

and interpretation as in Article 22(3) GDPR. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 22 GDPR Article 20 of GDPR proposal, COM(2012) 11 final

under the GDPR. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 94 GDPR Kühling, Raab, in Kühling, Buchner, GVO BDSG, Article 94 GDPR, margin numbers

to in Article 42(5) and approved by the supervisory authority which is competent pursuant to Article 55 or 56 or by the Board pursuant to Article 63; (c)

directly to children. As such, Article 8 GDPR stipulates additional requirements for consent by children. Article 8 GDPR applies only if the processing

standards of clarity (Article 61(3) GDPR). Requests are imperative and, subject to specific exceptions (Article 61(4) and (5) GDPR), must be fulfilled and

principle of data minimization provided in article 5.c [read article 5.1 c)] of the GDPR. According to article [...] of the royalty by-law of the City of

Procedural Act (Zákon č. 71/1967 Zb. o správnom konaní – Správny poriadok) unless the GDPR or the Slovak Data Protection Act (Zákon č. 18/2018 o ochrane osobných

of such processing (see Article 5(1)(b) GDPR), the requirement to have a legitimate basis laid down by law (see Article 6(1) GDPR), the right to access and

question if Google LLC violated Articles 5 et seqq. GDPR in connection with Article 28(3)(a) and Article 29 GDPR. The DSB fully upheld the complaint with

had been elected by the Italian Parliament on the 14 July 2020. The Garante operates under the GDPR and the national Data Protection Act ("Codice per la

Nowak, C-434/16, EU:C:2017:994, paragraphs 34–35. 5 CJEU judgment Breyer, C-582/14, EU:C:2016:779, paragraph 41. 6 CJEU judgment Breyer, C-582/14, EU:C:2016:779

or excessive (Article 12(5)(b) GDPR). The CJEU agreed with the reffering court that it was unclear from the wording of Article 15(1)(c) GDPR whether there

regulation[1] article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letters c and f, and Article 5, subsection 1, letter a, cf. Article 6, subsection 1

given that Article 6(1), Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(1)(c), and Article 14 GDPR were infringed in connection to Article 5(1)(b), the AEPD

is guaranteed in Article 8 i 20 ECJ judgment M.I.C.M, C-597/19, EU:C:2021:492, paragraphs 102–104 and Breyer judgment, C-582/14 EU:C:2016:779, paragraph

minimisation obligation pursuant to Article 5 of the GDPR and the data protection obligations pursuant to Article 25 of the GDPR. The Federal Administrative Court

Breyer, C-582/14, EU:C:2016:779, paras 45–46. 10 ECJ judgment M.I.C.M, C-597/19, EU:C:2021:492, paragraphs 102–104 and Breyer judgment, C-582/14, EU:C:2016:779

Breyer, C-582/14, EU:C:2016:779, paragraphs 45–46. 7 CJEU judgment M.I.C.M, C-597/19, EU:C:2021:492, paragraphs 102–104 and judgment Breyer, C-582/14, EU:C:2016:779

addresses that the Medical List does today, cf. GDPR Article 4, No. 11, Article 6 No. 1 letter a, Article 7 and Article 9 No. 2 letter a If current practice is

protection regulation's article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letters c and f, and Article 5, subsection 1, letter a, cf. Article 6, subsection 1

83(1)(a) of the GDPR. 5 of the GDPR, and with Article 21(5) of the GDPR, and with Article 21(2)(a) of the GDPR. 1(b) of Law No. 2472/1997, in conjunction

basis under Article 6(1) GDPR. In light of this, the DPA issued a fine of €70,000 to másLUZ Energía (SIE) by virtue of Article 83(5) GDPR for unlawful

entitled to erasure under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, as the data processing was not lawful. In any case, the requirements of Article 6 GDPR were no longer met 6

data in violation of the Privacy Ordinance, Article 5 (1) (a) and (c), Article 6, Article 12 (1) and Article 13. The Authority requested in the notification

pursuant to Article 82 GDPR. According to the Advocate General’s opinion, even if the notion of damages should be interpreted broadly, Article 82 GDPR implies

her designation in accordance with Union or national law Article 5(1)(a) and (c) GDPR: Article 5: Principles governing the processing of personal data 1)

as they relied on Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) pursuant to Article 46(2)(c) GDPR. It also claimed to have adopted a "risk-based approach" to the transfers

par le biais de la page de fans Facebook en question ; b. Article 21(1) j° c. Article 12(3) T&C, le deuxième défendeur n'ayant pas respecté le droit à un

information [...]". 5. Because according to the above article 17 of the GDPR, as it has been interpreted according to the content of the Guidelines 5/2019 of the

Articles 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) of the GDPR, as well as its duty of responsibility as the data controller, laid down in Article 5(2) of the GDPR. Furthermore

infringement of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. After recalling that each concerned DPA could submit a request for mutual assistance under Article 61 GDPR and thereby

referred to Article 5(1)(a) (principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency), Article 12(1), Article 7, Article 13 and Article 14 GDPR, the corresponding

under Article 77 GDPR was very clear and limited in scope. However, the DSB went on to assert a violation of Article 12 GDPR and Article 15(1)(h) GDPR, acting

called); -         Violation of the principle of data minimization, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR: inadequate and offensive comments or irrelevant comments related

obligation of the controller (Article 6 (1) (c)) or to perform a public interest task or exercise public authority paragraph (e)). Article 6 (3) of the Data Protection

and 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and article 11toun.3471 / 2006, according to article 58par.2 of the GCP in in combination with article 83 par. 5 of the

force: "According to Article 16 sentence 1 GDPR, every data subject has the right to request the controller (see Article 4(7) GDPR) to correct incorrect

other two conditions of Article 6 (1) (f) of the GDPR are not met. (26) The second condition of Article 6 (1) (f) of the GDPR is that the processing of

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 article provides

protection within the meaning of Article 45 of the GDPR and without appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of the GDPR. Furthermore, the plaintiff

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

that the data is not obtained from the interested party (article 14). Article 13 of the GDPR states: "1. When personal data relating to him or her is obtained

the fine, the criteria specified in the same article 83. 111. Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20, paragraph III, of the Data Protection

under Article 15 GDPR." The DPA rejected the request for review. Genealogical research on a family surname did not fall within the scope of Article 15 GDPR

right to access under Article 15 GDPR because the controller was entitled to reject the request pursuant to Article 12(5)(b) GDPR. The court reasoned that

number C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693 C/10/576074 / HA RK 19-694, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576083 / HA RK 19-697, C/10/576085 / HA RK 19-698, C/10/576094

very serious in article 72.1. e) from the LOPDGDD, with 10,000 euros. -article 13 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5 b) of the GDPR, and for the

Wohnen SE €14,500,000 for violating Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. The DPA of Berlin fined Deutsche Wohnen SE for violating Article 5(1)(c) and Article

provisions of Article 5(1)(a) and Articles 13 and 14 GDPR. Furthermore, the defendant violated the principle of integrity and confidentiality from Art. 5 Para.

fine, the criteria specified in the same Article 83." 112. Under Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20(III) of the Data Protection Act: "1

processor's accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR? Did the data processor under question violate Article 5(1) and 5(2) GDPR? Does the existence of a basis

to in Article 5(1) LRN, under which the controller did not fall in. Therefore, the controller breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR, in conjunction

conjunction with Article 56(5), read in conjunction with Article 56(6), read in conjunction with Article 56(7), read in conjunction with Article 56(8). in conjunction

lawfulness, the Litigation Chamber concludes that Article 5.1.a. of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 6 of the GDPR have not been complied with with regard to

for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. The AEPD considered that the fine was proportional, since the GDPR establishes that fines

that the controller had not violated Article 45 GDPR nor any of the subsequent Articles from Chapter V of the GDPR. The AEPD took into account that the

Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, C-73/07, EU:C:2008:727, para. 52 et seq.; also judgment of 14 February 2019, Buivids, C-345/17, EU:C:2019:122, para. 48 et seq

LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 and 13 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: The database of this organization

specialized website. AG Bobek is also of the opinion that Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR do not preclude national rules from laying down, without

it should have under Article 60 GDPR - Article 61(8) GDPR applied, which meant that the urgent need to act under Article 66(1) GDPR was presumed to be met

(Datatilsynet) held that the controller had breached Articles 5(1)(a) and (c), 6, 12(1) and 13 GDPR and for this fined the controller NOK 100,000 (approximately

recent letter (ref.C/ΕΞ/3668-1/08-08-2018) informed the company complained of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (hereafter GDPR) and the way in

within the meaning of Article 4 no. 2 of the GDPR and the term "transfer" within the meaning of Article 44 et seq. of the GDPR. GDPR had to be differentiated

assessing the scope of Article 96 of the Latvian Constitution, an account must be taken of the GDPR as well as of Article 16 TFEU and Article 8 of the Charter

regarding Articles 5(1)(b) GDPR and 5(1)(e) GDPR and held that national courts had to determine, using the factors of Article 6(4) GDPR, whether further

governed by the basic principle of GDPR, the principle of transparency (relevant Articles 12-14 of the GDPR). 4. The GDPR introduces the principle of accountability

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR SAW The violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD implies the commission of the violations typified in article 83.5 of the

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notification of the Commencement Agreement

breaching Articles 12(1), 14(1)(c), 14(2) and 14(3) GDPR. In addition, Datatilsynet also issued criticism in relation to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR for the controller’s

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SEVENTH: Notification of the aforementioned

constitute personal data under Article 4(1) GDPR? If so, do they qualify as special categories of personal data under Article 9 GDPR? Is the defendant obliged

fail to adhere to the data transparency (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR) and the data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) principles? Was the defendant required to

issue. C. On the failure to comply with the obligations relating to cookies 53. According to Article 82 of the Data Protection Act, transposing Article 5(3)

judgment of 16 December 2008 - C-73/07, EuZW 2009, 108 para. 59). 16.12.2008 - C-73/07, EuZW 2009, 108 para. 61 f.; v. 14.2.2019 - C-345/17, NVwZ 2019, 465 para

LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

Moreover, the information provided as per Article 13 GDPR were not compliant with the requirements of Article 12 GDPR in light of the fact that TikTok services

provisions of article 5.1.c of the GDPR. On information and people’s rights: Under Article 69 of the “Informatique et Libertés” law and Article 14.5.b of the

a breach of Article L. 34-5 of the French Post and Electronic Communications Code. The CNIL recalls the provisions of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, according to

vehicles. Article 5(1)(c) GDPR - “minimum data processing” principle 37. The principle of data minimum processing as set out in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR states

for an infringement of article 14 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction, in in relation to article 74.a) of the LOPDGDD.

number C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576083 / HA RK 19-697, C/10/576085 / HA RK 19-698, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576094

towards employees, cf. Articles 13 and 14 GDPR complied with the principle of transparency in Article 5 (2) (1) (a) GDPR, which according to the Authority's

under Article 15(4)(c) and 15(8) of Law No. 4624/19, the national data protection law, in conjunction with Article 58(2) GDPR. According to Article 6 of

disclosing personal data from a surveillance footage, thus breaching Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6. The company appealed to the Norwegian Privacy Appeals Board

Protection RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE C.C.C., with NIF *** NIF.1, for a violation of article 5.1.c), typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned rule, a sanction

principles are found 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

violated Article 6(1)GDPR, for processing personal data without a legal basis. Hence, the AEPD decided to fine Telefónica for the violation of Article 6(1)GDPR

his/her consent. The DPA first outlined Article 6(1)(a) and (b) GDPR, Articles 4(11) GDPR on consent, as well as Article 6 of the Spanish Data Protection Law

www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/14 particular (…) ” III The RGPD deals in its article 5 with the principles that must govern the treatment

the DSGVO (ECJ, Judgment of 16.12.2008 - C-73/07, EuZW 2009, 108 marginal 56- C/D and others; v. 14.02.2019 - C-345/17, NVwZ 2019, 465 marginal 49/51 -

1, for a violation of Article 13 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of 2000 euros (TWO THOUSAND euro). C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

limitation (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) C.1. General 42. In accordance with Article 5.1 b) of the GDPR, personal data is used “ for specific, explicitly defined

from them, as required under Article 14(1)(a) AVG and Article 14(2)(c)(e) and point (f) AVG; c. article 12 j° article 14 AVG, in view of the defendant

Pursuant to article 58, second paragraph, opening words and article 83, fifth paragraph, of the GDPR, read in in connection with article 14, third paragraph

with the principles of article 5 par. 1 GDPR. It is no coincidence that the GDPR includes accountability (see Article 5 para. 2 GDPR) in the regulation of

analyzes the criteria by Article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As to the nature and seriousness of the violation [article 83.2 a) of the GDPR], with regard to breaches

P3120800B, for the alleged violation of article 5.1.b) in relation to article 6.4 of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the RGPD. SECOND: INITIATE

appear in the name of C.C.C. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/14 2. That, thanks to friendly talks with C.C.C., the complainant

infraction of the Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 14/14 SECOND: SANCTION

a violation of article 5.1.a) of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. " No allegations are received against it. C / Jorge Juan, 6

with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 14 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD. In that

the lack of a privacy and cookie policy on a website infringe Article 13 GDPR and Article 22(2) LSSI? The AEPD decided to impose a fine to the clinic: €

required by article 6 of the RGPD. The data processing carried out violates article 6 of the RGPD conduct that is subsumed in article 83.5 of the RGPD

National Court, C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 14/14 in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of the additional

applies on violations of Article 13 (and 14) GDPR. The DSB held that § 24(6) DSG also applies on violations of Article 13 and 14 GDPR. A controller may therefore

the alleged violation of Article 48.1.b) of Law 9/2014, of 9 C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.agpd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/14 May, General Telecommunications

to Article 14 - and not the right to information pursuant to Article 15 of the GDPR as alleged by the respondent - was alleged. However, Article 14 (1)

(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

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned start-up

opening clause in Article 86 GDPR if the disclosure involves personal data? The court held that the VIG complies with Article 86 GDPR: The provisions of

that under Article 82 (1) and (2) GDPR, any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of a violation of the GDPR is entitled

portability; (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or on Article 9, (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a),

that a controller is allowed to reject a request to access under Article 12(5)(b) GDPR as "excessive" if the request's sole purpose is to verify the validity

as Article 57 (1) (a), Article 58 (2) (e) and (i), Article 83 (1) - (3) and Article 83 (4) (a) in connection with Article 33 (1) and Article 34 (1), (2)

as used in Article 5 of the GDPR and that Article 17(1)(d) of the GDPR also does not apply.c. Is the method of registration inadequate?4.14. [applicant]

subject, and their (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 6(1)(b) or Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR Article 9(2)(a), the existence

transparency, cf. Article 5(1)(a), and accuracy, cf. Article (5)(1)(d), they hadn't recorded the processing activity as required in Article 30, hadn't conducted

approved appeal of Article 5(1)(a), Article 12(1), Article 13(1) and Article 13(2). The appeal for Article 5(1)(c), Article 6(1) and Article 8 GDPR was not approved

4 and article 15 of the GDPR (right of access), for reasons set out below. Furthermore, in accordance with article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and article 95, §

Authority. II.5.2. Established infringement of Article 5(1)(a) j° Article 6(1)(f) and Article 12(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 17 (1) GDPR. II.5.2.1. Administrative

provisions of the GDPR relating to the principles of data protection (article 5 of the GDPR) and the lawfulness of processing (article 6 of the GDPR). An infringement

provided for in Article 5(1)(a), (e) and (f), Article 5(2), Article 24(1) and (2), Article 28(3), Article 30(1)(d) and (f) and Article 32(1) of the General

that the article’s 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

lawfulness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a), 6 and 9 GDPR) as well as its obligations under Article 12, 14, 15 and 27 GDPR. The DPA fined the controller

thereby violating Article 12 (1) and Article 14 (1) points a) and c), as well as Article 14 (2) b), c) and e) of the GDPR points. 3.5. Customer 1's data

OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 p. 1; Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), OJ No C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 1; Article 8 of the Charter

The Spanish DPA (AEPD) fined Borjamotor, S.A. for infringing Article 7 GDPR and Article Article 21(1) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI)

fulfilled the duty of information in accordance with GDPR. The Spanish DPA considered that Article 35 GDPR applies in this case and thus a DPIA is necessary

2016, Star Storage and others, C 439/14 and C 488/14, EU:C:2016:688, paragraph 46, and of 26 July 2017, Sacko, C 348/16, EU:C:2017:591, paragraph 31) 60 Consequently

required by Article 13 of the GDPR GDPR. The form used violated Article 13 of the GDPR conduct that is subsumi- ble under Article 83(5) of the GDPR, which provides:

investigation.14 see, to this effect, CJEU, July 18, 2013, Commission and others / Kadi, C ‑ 584/10 P, C ‑ 593/10 P and C ‑ 595/10 P,ECLI: EU: C: 2013: 518

punish illegal behavior. 6 Even if article 14 of the GDPR had been applied, as referred to in article 14 par. 5 of the GDPR regarding the information provided

information obligation provided for a / 'article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR. (...) Pursuant to article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR, the responsibility for processing

right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”) of Article 17 GDPR and Article 19 of Regulation 2018/1725. Under GDPR, such prolonged and unrestricted data retention

principles of minimization and purpose limitation (Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR): The Belgian DPA considers that the indication of the

groups January 14, 2020. 4. Capture WhatsApp message from a contact relating the request for money. 5. Report to the Police of January 14, 2020 filed by

internal compliance and accountability according to Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR. Since the company had totally ignored the its

cites Articles 5(1)(b) and (e), 9(2)(j), 89(1) GDPR and Section 7(1)(1) and (2)(1) GDPR. In particular, it follows from Article 9(2)(j) GDPR that the processing

time tracking system, due to a lack of compatibility with Article 7(4) and Article 35(9) of GDPR. KEO PLC decided to upgrade its ERP system, whose upgrade

judgments of the European Court of Justice C-131/12 and C-136/17 In the judgments of the EU Court C-131/12 and C-136/17, it has been stated that the processing

400,000 pursuant of Article 83(5)(c) GDPR for the breach of the international personal data transfer regime (Articles 44 and 46(2) GDPR). The service that

relation to the requirements prescribed by Article 12.1 of the GDPR (transparency obligation) and by Article 13 of the GDPR (right to information). The Head of

violated Article 12 GDPR, as it did not facilitate the data subject´s exercise of their rights, especially the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR. In view

ofcontroller (article 4.7 of the GDPR), the scope of the GDPR (article3.1 of the GDPR), the right to erasure (article 17 of the GDPR) and its powers (article 58.2of

connection with Article 5 paragraph 1 point c, Article 9 paragraph 1, Article 58 paragraph 2 point f, point g and point i and with Article 83 paragraph 2

basis (article 14.1 c) GDPR), but all information as stipulated in article 14.1 GDPR in order to comply with the transparency principle (article 5.1 a) GDPR)

the violation of the GDPR: violation of article 6.1, violation typified in its article 83.5.a). IV Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR “Security of processing”

incorporate the obligation established in Article 20.1 c) of the LOPDGD to block the information for thirty days. Article 20.1 c) of the LOPDGDD states "That the

April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR), in conjunction with Article 3, Article 4(2) and Article 6(1)(b), all of which are applicable to the

obligation (Article 4:32 § 1 Wft). Therefore, Article 6(1)(c) GDPR was relevant. However, the Court highlighted that the phrase "at least on" in Article 6(1)

((articles 5. 1, a) GDPR , 12.1 GDPR and 14.1 a) and c) GDPR) and how the accountability obligation was fulfilled (art 5.2 GDPR and 24 GDPR). The parties

the data subject to seek further remedies. Moreover, in line with Article 14(4) GDPR, the controller should have informed the data subject that personal

free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

under Article 15 GDPR to the defendant and requested i.a. information on concrete recipients of their personal data under Article 15(1)(c) GDPR. The defendant

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

measures aimed at strengthening the security of the processing. Under Article 36(5) GDPR, the Italian Ministry of Health has submitted the Data Protection

alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.4 of the RGPD and Article 83.5 of the RGPD. The initiation

agreements Article 12 (1) of the GDPR 17 IV.5. Legal consequences (72) The Authority finds that the Client has infringed Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR, Article 6 Article

principleof data minimization within the meaning of Article 5 (1) point c) GDPR.3. Breaches of the GDPR and the complainant's requests68. The Disputes Chamber

service within the meaning of Article 14 of European Directive 2000/31/EC. Additionally, the controller referred to Article 14 par. 1 of Presidential Decree

of the GDPR: art. 5.1 a, 12.1, 13, 14, 6, 7, 5.1.c in conjunction with 25, 5.2, 28.3, 31, 37 and 38 AVG. 63. With regard to Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR, the defendant

furthermore claimed that the processing of the surname was in line with Article 5(1)(c) as it was associated with economic data Was the processing of the complainant's

against the processing of personal data, cf. Article 21 (1) of the Privacy Ordinance, it follows from Article 17 (1) (c) that Google has a duty to delete the

within the meaning of Article 22 (1) of the GDPR with regard to [Applicants]. Since Article 13, paragraph 2, heading and under f, Article 14, paragraph 2, heading

the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: On October

violation of Article 12 GDPR ? Are the following practices an infringement on data subjects' information right as described in Article 12 GDPR ? Spreading

some of them continuously. The above was in breach of Article 5(1)(c) and Article 13 GDPR. On 14 February 2019, the Luxembourg DPA decided to open an investigation

violation of article 5.1. d) of the RGPD typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned Regulation (EU) 2016/679. SECOND: APPOINTMENT to C.C.C. and secretary

Camera" (which processes image and voice) according to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR? The ANSPDCP found that the staff of the General Directorate

data to other parties and therefore violates Article 14 GDPR. The Court also stated that Article 77 GDPR allows data subjects to contact the data protection

of article83.5.b) of the RGPD and b) the alleged infringement of article 22.1) of the LSSI, punishablein accordance with the provisions of article 38.4

obeys orders, from "C.C.C.", a person who it appears in some of the signatures of the petitioner's writings. The caller speaks of damages C / Jorge Juan, 6

conditions of Article 6 (1) of the GDPR. This follows both from Article 21(1)(1)(2) of the GDPR, which refers to Article 6(1)(1)(e) and (f) of the GDPR as a possible

legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, they must still comply with data protection principles under Article 5 GDPR. In Croatia, many employers

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 data

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd

is established in article 6 of the GDPR, for which they suppose the commission of an offense classified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, which gives rise to

Articles 6 and 13 GDPR? The AEPD decided to impose, for infringement of Article 6 GDPR, a fine of € 10000 and, for infringement of Article 13 GDPR, a fine of

[The equivalent GDPR Article to Article 48(3)(a) EU GDPR is Article 46(3)(a) GDPR, and Article 50(1)(d) EU GDPR is Article 49(1)(d) GDPR.] Share blogs or

violated the general data protectionArticle 5 (1) (a), Article 5 (2), Article 12 (1) and (4) ofArticle 14, Article 15 and Article 21 (4).1.3. The Authority condemns

processed on the basis of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR does not have the rights to erasure and objection contained in Article 17 and Article 21 GDPR respectively. This

foundation was responsible for violating Article 33 GDPR, and issued it with a warning pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. The AEPD did not find the former Secretary

Therefore the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) and (2), Article 6(1), Article 12(1), Article 13(1)(b) and (c) GDPR. The DPA imposed a fine of €50.000

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

by the defendant under Article 6(1) GDPR? Did the controller infringe the data minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR? Did the controller commit

disproportionate pursuant to Art. 14 par. 5 lit. b GDPR? The President of UODO found that: 1) The applicable provision is the Art. 14 GDPR since the data controller

Spanish City Council with a warning of an infringement of Article 5(1)(c) pursuant to Article 83(5) over installed surveillance cameras in the City Hall.

principles of article 5 par. 1 GDPR. It's not a coincidence that the GDPR includes accountability (already mentioned above article 5 par. 2 GDPR) in the regulation

ofcombined provisions of Articles 5, paragraph 1 to 1. c) and article 5, paragraph 1 al. f) with article83, paragraph 5, al. a), the General Data Protection

applicable to the controller, including Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR. As a matter of fact, Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR set general principles and conditions of

the processing is thus in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 (c) and Article 5 (1). Paragraph 1 (e), where processing and

specific categories of information in Article 8 (1) and (5) of Directive 95/46 or in Article 9 (1), Article 10 (1) and Article 10 of Regulation 2016/679, the

the Municipality lawful in accordance with Articles 5(1)(c), 6(1)(c), (e), 6(2), and 6(3)(b) GDPR? The DPA held that the disclosure of the personal data

stakeholders did not follow the security principles as per Article 5(1)(f) GDPR (ed.: the decision actually reads 5(2)(f)), highlighting ‘the absence of an assessment

protected by article 5 par. 1 item a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR. 12. Because, since a lack of compliance with the provisions of article 5 par.

companies that use the TC-string? (Article 4(1) GDPR) 2) a) Is IAB a (joint) controller (Article 4(7) GDPR and Article 24(1) GDPR)? b) Does it matter whether

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

99 GDPR |GDPR_Article_4= |GDPR_Article_Link_4= |GDPR_Article_5= |GDPR_Article_Link_5= |GDPR_Article_6= |GDPR_Article_Link_6= |GDPR_Article_7= |GDPR_Article_Link_7=

99 GDPR |GDPR_Article_4= |GDPR_Article_Link_4= |GDPR_Article_5= |GDPR_Article_Link_5= |GDPR_Article_6= |GDPR_Article_Link_6= |GDPR_Article_7= |GDPR_Article_Link_7=

decision of the Minister is no longer based on Article 17(3) GDPR. Instead the decision is based on Article 6(4) GDPR. However the Minister did not explain well

has been received. Does the GDPR allow the data controller to ignore a request for erasure? The AEPD found that Article 12 GDPR does not allow the data controller

(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

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

Digital Rights (LOPDGDD), for the infringement of Article 5.1 f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD and considered very serious in 72

protocols. This therefore breached Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR. The initial sanction for infringing Article 5(1)(f) was a fine of €5000 and the

the protection of legally relevant interests in accordance with Article 5-bis" (Article 5, paragraph 2, Legislative Decree no. 33/2013). In relation to the

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 33 of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD

right of rectification of Article 16 GDPR and Article 14 of LOPDGDD, the national data protection law, the DPA stated that Article 12(4) LOPDGDD obliges the

data breach (Article 32 GDPR). Does the plaintiff have a right to compensation according to Article 82(1) GDPR and does Article 82(3) GDPR stipulate a reversal

should have applied Article 35 GDPR. In light of the above, the Italian DPA used its corrective powers under Article 58(2)(c) and 83 GDPR and fined the controller

provisions of articles 12.5 and 15.3 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in sections 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law. " FIFTH: Article 17 of the RGPD provides

legal basis for their processing in article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However, according to article 17(1)(c) and article 21(1) GDPR, upon receiving an erasure request

company was 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

permanently, access to its entirety. Such C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/7 effects, the communication by the person

the social and health authority of a city to had breached Article 6 GDPR and Article 10 GDPR by requesting data subjects to provide it with personal data

violated Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 15(3) GDPR and held that the controller had to make a decision regarding the access request within 14 days. Share

Authority of Bologna for violation of Articles 5(2)(f) and 9 GDPR. On the basis of Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR, the Garante imposed a fine of € 18 000 on

recipients of data in accordance with Article 14 [GDPR], in order to safeguard the rights in accordance with Article 15 GDPR, it is absolutely necessary that

accordance with provided for in article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction

infringements of Article 5(1)(f), Article 24, and Article 32 GDPR, and to the objection of the IT SA on the possible infringement of Article 5(2) GDPR, the EDPB

exercising their rights in bad faith. The AEPD brought forward Article 12(5) GDPR, as well as Article 7 of the Spanish Civil Code, that states that rights must

where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section 165 or Article 77 of the GDPR, the Commissioner (a) fails to take appropriate steps to respond

Rundfunk and others, C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, EU:C:2003:294, marginal 100; judgment of 6 November 2003, Lindqvist, C-101/01, EU:C:2003:596, marginal

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

of the article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, infringement typified in its article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned regulation. IV. Article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, considers

DPA under Article 100 § 1, 6, 10 and 12 of the LCA. The complainant y also denounces a breach of Article 5.1. c) and Article 5.1. e) of the GDPR. 18. The

Principle of purpose limitation Article 5.1.c : Principle of data minimization Article 5.1.d : Principle of accuracy Article 5.1.e : Principle of limitation of

infringement of article 6.1 of the RGPD, sanctioned in accordance with the provisions in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 2. APPOINT C.C.C. Instructor

legitimate and explicit purpose. Therefore, it was contrary to Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR. In addition, the DPA found that the controller did not

6. tölul. Article 3 of the Act and point 7. Article 4 of the Regulation. The Chief Epidemiologist is required according to point 2. Article 5 Epidemiology

legal basis (Article 6 of the GDPR), personal data must, in accordance with the principle of minimization expressed in Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, be adequate

sanctioning procedure, under Article 83(5)(a) of the GDPR, against AAA on 21 December 2022, due to a infringement of Article 6. AAA was the father of the

principles of purpose limitation and data minimization under Article 5(1)(b) and (c) GDPR. A request of civic access was presented to the Udine City Council

controller thus also violated Article 14 GDPR. However, the DPA did not use any of their corrective powers as listed in Article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments

of limitation of purpose Article 5.1.c: Principle of data minimization Article 5.1.d: Principle of accuracy Article 5.1.e: Principle of limitation of the

2016-301 of March 14, 2016 for all contracts, - Article 32 / II of the Data Protection Act for all contracts; * clause n ° 11 regarding - of article 6 and 32 /

their 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

all" button be considered a breach of GDPR Article 4(11) and Article 7, read in conjunction with GDPR Article 5(3) -Privacy while the data controller gives

compliant 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

measures to security of processing, in accordance with Article 32 GDPR, in connection with Article 24 GDPR, as the controller did not take into account the risks

required by Article 12 GDPR. The DPA clarified that the right of information and the right of access are distinct. An access request under Article 15 GDPR is not

of the LCA as well as 83 of the GDPR, for / 'all breaches identified, namely for breach of Article 5, 1., b) of the GDPR, and 1 PAGE □ 1- □ valid farfetched

(1) lit. d GDPR. The procedure was also compatible with the principle of purpose limitation within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 lit. b GDPR. In September

Articles 5.1.b) and 5.1.c) of the GDPR pursuant to Article 95, §1, 3° of the LCA; - pursuant to Article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of the

"TuPassi" appointment booking system, in violation of Articles 5, 13, 14, 28 and 32 GDPR. With a previous measure (n. 81 of 7 March 2019) the Garante already

breach of the obligation to inform pursuant to Article 14 of the GDPR 20. According to Article 14 of the GDPR: 1. Where personal data has not been collected

more personal data than strictly necessary within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR. The FPS Finance therefore does not comply with the data minimization

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On June 30, 2022, the claimed party presented

restaurant owner lawful in line of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? The Spanish DPA concluded that there has been a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR because the uploading of

exercised by a complainant pursuant to Article 17 GDPR and analysed the exercise of the rights under Articles 15-22 GDPR. On 15 February 2019, Mrs A.A.A.  (hereinafter

found no violation of Article 18(1)(c) GDPR by taking the above circumstances into account. It reasoned that Article 18(1)(c) GDPR also requires a balancing

observations, which, in accordance with Article 54(1)(b), (3) and (4), (4) and (4), (5) and (5), (5) and (5), (5) and (5), (5) and (6). 2 of the Rules of Procedure

complaint lodged under Article 77 of the GDPR, or proceedings based on Article 78(1) of the GDPR, is not precluded by the GDPR or any other provision of

in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation 2016/679. In turn, in accordance with Article 30a of the Act of 14 December 2016. Educational

assessment and an additional DPIA under Article 35 GDPR, in order to guarantee the adherence to the principles of Article 5 GDPR. First, the Spanish DPA stated

as 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

contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR), nor could be based on legitimate interest of the controller (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Consent (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR) could

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD and Article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

force of the GDPR, the controller also sent him a separate revocation letter referring to the operational reasons under Article 38(3) GDPR, second sentence

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

the established by the article 17 of the RGPD, as well as the established by the article 15 of the Law 41/2002, of November 14, basic regulator of the

infringement of article 5.1(b), as defined in Article 83(5)(a) and considered for the purposes of the statute of limitations in Article 72(1)(a), a fine

free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

or treatment activities to which therequest.C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/62. The right of access will be understood

infringement of Article 5.1 b) in conjunction with Article 6.4. AVG, on article 5.1 a) in conjunction with article 6.1. AVG and on article 5.1 c) GDPR has been

Appeal considered that Article 96 GDPR does not provide a time limit for the validity of international agreements concluded prior GDPR and that a ban on some

not having complied with Article 13 GDPR. A claimant filed a complaint with the DPA to report several infringements of the GDPR coming from the Asturian

in Article 23 GDPR. Restrictions on the right to information under Art. 15 GDPR result in particular from the express provision in Art. 15 (4) GDPR that

Judiciales (JAVA). JAVA infringed Article 6(1)(a) GDPR by publishing illegal recordings on its website and also infringed Article 22(2) LSSI due to its cookie

infringement of article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR and 72.1.a) of the LOPDGDD. 2-That in application of article 58.2.c) of

258.736/01 case numbers/rekestnummer rechtbank Noord-Holland : C/15/273938 / HA RK 18-80 C/15/276302 / HA RK 18-116 order of the multiple civil chamber of

principle (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and the principle of minimum data processing (Article 5.1 c) GDPR). This follows from both provisions of the GDPR camera surveillance

13 or 14 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/6 Regarding processing for video surveillance purposes, article 22.4

pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, of the Regulation, with this measure. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of

regarding Article 6(1) GDPR and consent requirements regulated previously to GDPR. The fact that the infringements related to Article 25 GDPR did not include

requirements of Article 13 of the Regulation. C. On the breach relating to cookies 69. Article 82 of the Data Protection Act (Article 32.II in a wording

on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. In particular, the appellant argued that pursuant to Article 6(3) GDPR, a public interest task under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR must

of an infringement of the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR principle of fairness, and infringements of the Article 5(1)(b) and (c) GDPR principles of purpose limitation

Court found that customers’ order data is health data and fall within Article 9(1) GDPR. Amazon does not collect health data stricto sensu but it can draw

processing was therefore in breach of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR. The DPA also ruled out Article 6(1)(f) on the grounds of domestic law:

protection principles in Article 5 GDPR. This includes notifying the data subjects about processing in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 GDPR. The DPA held that

pursuant to Article 12(3) of the AVG. If, as in this case, such a decision is taken by an administrative body, then, pursuant to Article 34 of the GDPR Implementing

free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

controller for the purposes of Article 4(7) GDPR, and Company A was the processor for the purposes of Article 4(8) GDPR. The DPA found that both Companies

to compliance with transparency obligations (Articles 5.1.a) and 12 to 14 of the GDPR), Article 5 of the draft decree specifies, on the one hand, that data

is only determined by Article 5 et seqq. GDPR. A violation of Article 13 or 14 GDPR can be fined under Article 83(5) GDPR but it does not affect the lawfulness

on legitimate interests according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and that Ziggo had to comply with Article 6(4)(d) GDPR. The Court found that DFW had a legitimate

Pursuant to Article 37(5) GDPR, the DPO should be designated, inter alia, on the basis of their in data protection law and practice. Article 37(7) GDPR provides

subject relied on the GDPR to anonymise and redact deeds which were key to the proceedings, on the basis of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR (data minimisation). In

infringes the basic data protection regulation depends on Art. 5 ff. DSGVO. Under Article 5(1)(a) DSGVO, personal data must be processed in a lawful manner

rights of the data subject, violated Article 12 of the Decree. Article 15 (4), Article 15 (1) and Article 18 (1) (c) respectively. The Obliged - a III.2

minimization (Article 5.1. c) GDPR) is not was complied with. 73. In order to verify whether the third condition of Article 6.1, f) GDPR - the so-called

Pursuant to article 58, second paragraph, opening words and article 83, fourth paragraph, of the AVG, read in in connection with article 14, third paragraph

regarding Article 6(1) GDPR and consent requirements regulated previously to GDPR. The fact that the infringements related to Article 25 GDPR did not include

fine of €6,000 imposed for violation of Article 32 GDPR and a fine of €5,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Additionally instructed the erasure

to fine under Article 58, second paragraph, preamble below Article 83, fourth paragraph, of the AVG, read in conjunction with Article 14, third member

presented: In files 20130226175518_000001301_14_155 and 20130226175518_000001302_14_155, the voice is of C.C.C., person denounced by the appellant to the

including Article 129 WEC which implements Article 5.3 of Directive 2002/5815 (hereinafter, "ePrivacy Directive"), in accordance with Article 14 § 1 of the

defendant on the basis of Article 100.1, 5 ° LCA given the breach noted in Article 6 of the GDPR combined with Article 5.1.a) of GDPR; - To dismiss the remainder

obligations under Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 of GDPR. Article 5 (1) : Ticketmaster has failed to comply with the requirements of GDPR including to process

A., with NIF *** NIF.1,  For an infringement of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the mentioned rule, a fine of TWO THOUSAND EUROS

fairness and transparency (Article 5.1 a) GDPR), purpose limitation (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and minimum data processing (Article 5.1 c) GDPR); 4) the legal basis

reference to Article 3.5 of an artist's contract (document 2 of the The applicants rely - among other things with reference to Article 3.5 of an artist's

prejudice to Articles 12(5) and 15(3) of the EU Regulation 2016/679 and in Article 13(3) and (4) of this Organic Law". FIFTH: Article 15 of the RGPD provides

to be qualified as a health data pursuant to Article(4)(15) GDPR and that the scope of protection of Article 9(2) must be taken into account as a standard

outside the material scope of the GDPR. Also, with regards to the definition of personal data from Article 4(1) GDPR, the DPA did not reach a firm conclusion

of article 32, paragraph 1, GDPR further elaborated in article 32, paragraph 2, subaenk, VIS Regulation. 2.5AccessrightstoNVISandstaffprofiles 2.5.1Legal

the processing of personal data of the data subject (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR; Article 6 and Article 8 of the Italian Legislative Decree No. 101 of August

this case failed to respect the principle of data minimisation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR since information about these kinds of grants and how they are calculated

the GDPR when it was notified by the data subject of a possible fraudulent transaction as the bank had complied with its obligations under Article 32 GDPR

referenced Recital 173 GDPR and EDPB Opinion 05/2020 on this point. The DPA held that the controller’s new privacy policy violated Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy

implementation and specify and supplement the GDPR. § 3(1) mentioned in this case corresponds to Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. In Denmark, the

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

under Article 77(1) GDPR and subsequently the right of judicial remedy against the supervisory authority under Article 78(1) GDPR. Article 79 (1) GDPR provides

judgment of 5.6.2018, Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein, C-210 / 16, EU: C: 2018: 388, para 38, and of 10.7.2018, Jehovah's Toadistat, C-25/17, EU: C: 2018:

treatment Letter a) and c) of article 5.1 of the GDPR advocates: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 14/28 "1. Personal data will

complies with the principle of proportionality within the meaning of Article 5.2.1(c) of the Protocol. In view of the considerations set out in point 3.4

contravene Articles 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR? The AEPD found that GRUP BC S.L violated Article 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

found violations of Articles 5(1)(c) and 6 GDPR and Article 29(1) of Law 125(I)/2018. Concerning the violation of Article 29(1) of Law 125(I)/2018, the

the data could be processed under the legitimate interest basis (ARTICLE 6(1)(f) GDPR). The tribunal weighted the different interests at stake and decided

months fromC / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 14 14/14day after notification of this act, as provided in article 46.1 of thereferred

referred to in this article for the processing of personal data in the context of its search function. 4.5 Subsequently, Article 17(1) of the GDPR grants the right

this regulation in accordance with Article 57 (1) (a) GDPR and which has the powers in accordance with Article 58 GDPR. For this reason alone, there was

order that there is no violation of articles 5.1(c), 5.1(d), 5.1(e) and 5.1(f). Articles 5.1(c), (d) and (f), 5.2, 12, 16, 24, 25, 30.1, 31, 32, 38.3 and

accountability (Article 5 (2) and 24 (1), (2) GDPR), privacy by design (Article 25 (1) GDPR) and as controller towards its data processors (Article 28 GDPR). Consequently

violates Article 32 GDPR. Retaining personal data of an applicant for a lease after another applicant has been selected also violates Article 5(1)(e) GDPR

pursuant to Article 13 GDPR. In the present case, the controller omitted this obligation. The DPA therefore held that the controller violated Article 13 GDPR

loss of control of personal data and a breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. The first complainant is a company that is engaged

arises from Article 5.2 and Article 24 GDPR where it is up to the defendant to demonstrate that they also acts in accordance with article 5.1. f GDPR namely:

Court's request for preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) GDPR is published. The data subject filed a complaint with the Austrian

case of C.I.F. A80907397, a penalty of EUR 120,000 (one hundred and twenty thousand euros), under¬ Article 6.1 (a) and Article 5.1 (a) of the GDPR, under

Articles 5(1)(a) GDPR and 13 GDPR. On the other hand, they disagreed with the infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR in relation to Article 9(1) GDPR with regard

21(2) and 21(4) GDPR. Moreover, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c), 5(2), 6(1), 12(2), 21(2) and 21(4) GDPR. The controller

accordance 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)

this data breach a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR? The AEPD concluded that there was no violation of Article 32(1) GDPR, because the company had implemented

clinical history and file administrative of the mother and minor daughter C.C.C. in connection with assistance of pregnancy, childbirth and subsequent clinical

treatment contained in article 5 of the GDPR. We will highlight the principle of data minimization contained in article 5.1.c) of the GDPR that provides that

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR (LCEur 2016, 605) , typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, a penalty of warning, of in accordance with article 77 of

lawfulness, 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

provisions of article 5.1.c of the GDPR. On information and people’s rights Under article 69 of the “data processing and freedoms” law and article 14.5.b of the

valid consent under Article 4(11) GDPR and Article 6(1) LOPDGDD (National data protection law aimed at the implementation of the GDPR). In both articles

by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, since there have been violations of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. The defendant also breached

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

information provided was in breach of Article 13 GDPR. Therefore, the authority warned the controller (Article 83(5) GDPR) and requested to complete the notice

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6.1. of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD. FIFTH:Once the initiation agreement has

coming into force of the GDPR on 25. 5. 2018. Can a controller charge for access to historic account data under Article 15 GDPR? Is GDPR applicable to a case

controller under the GDPR. The data controller did not process personal data with an appropriate level of security, as required by article 32, read in conjunction

timetable" "B.- In accordance with Article 67 of the GDPR, the Inspectorate of the AEPD, in accordance with Article E/0113/2019, carried out the following

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

authority (cf. Article 36 (2) no. 7 lit. a DPA) for the purposes of military self-protection (cf. Article 36 (1) DPA in conjunction with Article 2 (1) no. 2

terminated, must be assessed in the light of Article 6 GDPR and not Article 10 GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR provides a sufficient basis for processing. The

and Article 85 GDPR. In June 2019, the complainant requested erasure of her personal data from the respondent's website, claiming that an article on that

to the criteria laid down by Article 83 paragraph 2 of the GDPR. With regard to the breach of Article L. 34-5 of the GDPR, the restricted committee considers

Norway, and not the GDPR. The DPA does, however, refer to corresponding Articles in the GDPR: Articles 5(1)(b) and (c), as well as Article 17. Share blogs

data subject under Articles 17 (1) GDPR and 21 (1) GDPR can submit , also given the provisions of Article 12 (5) GDPR ? 5. Does it make any difference to

the general rule of Article 15 (1) (a), c) and d) of the GDPR by not giving substantive, specific answers to the request under Article 15 and by sharing

municipality still breached Article 13 GDPR, they did have a valid legal basis for processing under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. On October 14, 2019, a kindergarten

meaning of Article 5.1.c. AVG). 13. The transcript of the hearing is subsequently transmitted to the parties on 28 June 2023; in accordance with Article 54 of

transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, the principle of data minimization (in terms of "need to know") under Article 5 (1)(c) GDPR, the principle of storage

adequate information under Article 13 GDPR, and for the processing of personal data in a manner contrary to Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. A data subject submitted

with Articles 5.1.a, 5.1.c, 6 and 9 of the AVG Finding 2: Violation of the principle of purpose limitation in accordance with Article 5.1.b of the AVG

held that a lawsuit under Article 79 GDPR regarding the alleged violation of Article 15 GDPR is indeed feasible. Article 79 GDPR is not limited to certain

12/13 public, as indicated in article 77.1. c) and 2. 4. 5. and 6. of the LOPDDGG: “1. The regime established in this article will be applicable to the treatments

EDREAMS, S.L. was ordered for a violation of the Article 44 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, adapt the activity of data processing carried

withdrawal of consent under Article 7(3) GDPR. The Authority also considers the existence of a deletion request under Article 17 GDPR. The AEPD concludes that

captures activities of employees without their knowledge compliant with Article 5 GDPR? The DPA concluded that the video surveillance system introduced by

her life. Her objection to processing follows from Article 21(1) GDPR. ING argues that Article 21(1) GDPR cannot be relied on in this case because it applies

in Article 17 GDPR (cf. Article 17 (3) b GDPR). In that case, the data subject does not have the right to object as referred to in Article 21 GDPR, because

referred to in Article 33(1) of the AVG.15 15 File note 1, Notification of personal data breach 7-2-2019. P 5. 3.4.3 Assessment Article 33(1) of the AVG

compelling reasons within the meaning of Article 9 of the protocol on monitoring systems. That article reads as follows: "Article 9 Articles 05 to 08 do not affect

principle, namely the breaches of articles 5-1-c), 5 -1 e), 13, 32 and 35-1 of the GDPR; no breach of Article 6 of the GDPR and of Directive 2002/58 / EC of the

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 that

Privacy Ordinance article 58 no. 2. 4.2 Requirements for treatment protocol Pursuant to Article 30 of the Privacy Regulation (and Article 24 of Directive

provided for in Article 83.5.a) in relation to Articles 5.1.a) and 9; another infraction provided for in Article 83.5.b) in relation to Article 13; and a third

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

for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with article 77.2 of the LOPDGDD

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

the art. 114.1.c) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es, 5/5 Common to Public

suspension. " 5 Pursuant to Article 83 (2), (5) and (7) of the General Data Protection Regulation: “[...] administrative fines in accordance with Article 58 (2)

the CNAM. 2.2.2. Nature of personal data 2.2.2.1. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR, the data processed must be relevant, adequate and limited to

that it considers pertinent, of in accordance with article 89.2 of the LPACAP. C.C.C. INSTRUCTOR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd

violated Article 5(1)(e) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant

law to the GDPR, both regimes must be read in the same way. Second, identifiability is defined by Article 3(1) 2018/1725 (Article 4(1) GDPR). The use of

information duty included in Article 13 GDPR. Is this a violation of Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD held that there had been a violation of Article 13. According to the

PS_00003_2020 1. Claim of C.C.C. 2. Transfer of claim to PLAY ORENES, S.L. 3. Answer to the request of D.D.D. 4. Admission for processing to C.C.C. 5. E / 02186/2019

the GDPR, as the data falls under Article 9 GDPR and awarded € 800 in emotional damages. The Austrian Business Code cannot override Article 9 GDPR. There

purpose limitation in accordance with Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter b GDPR (Paal/Pauly/Paal, 3rd edition 2021, GDPR Article 15 Rn. 24). The plaintiff has a right

administrative fine Under Article 58, second paragraph, preamble below i, the AP is read in conjunction with Article 83 of the GDPR, authorized to impose an

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

violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, the DPA fined the controller €50,000. In its assessment of the fine, the DPA noted three aggravating factors per Article 83(2)

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

communications under Article 14 GDPR were not legally necessary, as in the present case, Article 23 GDPR restrictions were applicable. Article 23 GDPR establishes

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

of Article 6(1)(e) GDPR -public interest and exercise of official authority vested in it, which falls within the exception of Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. It

specified in Art. 12 GDPR, which in turn refers to Art. 13, 14 and 15-22 as well as Art. 34 GDPR. Article 13 (1) GDPR provides in lit. c to the effect that

Paal in Paal/Pauly, DSGVO/BDSG , Article 15 paragraph 33; Schaffland/Holthaus in Schaffland/Wiltfang, GDPR, Article 15 GDPR paragraph 44; loc. A. Härting

this the AZOP held that the controller acted contrary to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR. Moreover, the AZOP reiterated the fact that the pictures

fairness principle, violating Article 5(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and Article 6 in conjunction with Article 8 Personal Data Protection

minimisation principle related, as per Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and the lack of transparent information, as per Article 12 GDPR. The decision is the consequence

relation to Articles 5, par. 1, lett. a) and c) and 6 of the Regulation, following the outcome of the procedure pursuant to art. 166, paragraph 5. Considering

B02547164, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 GDPR, a fine of FIVE THOUSAND EUROS (€ 5,000.00). SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

for processing personal data without a legal ground as required by Article 6(1) GDPR, after hiring a handwriting expert to determine that an alleged signature

violation of thearticle 5.1.f), in relation to article 6.1 of the RGPD.The violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5.a)of the RGPD. The

permission in Article 6 (1) (c) GDPR and argues that it is the Viennese in accordance with Article 5 (3) of the EpiG in conjunction with Article 1 (2) (e)

ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the requirements of awarding damages for GDPR violations and the assessment of such damage under Article 82 GDPR. For the

controller, in this case the public administration, breached Articles 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD examined a complaint submitted by an anonymous citizen