Search results

provided for in Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or, as the case may be, Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, and consent is withdrawn according to Article 7(3) GDPR, data must be

request because the processing was necessary according to Article 17(3)(b) GDPR and Article 17(3)(e) GDPR. The controller stated that, according to Chapter 8

pursuant to the Article 17(3)(b) of the GDPR. However, Statistics Denmark has been criticised for not complying with the Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR, namely,

information correctly published at the time. The DPA noted that under Article 17(3)(b) GDPR, personal data shall not be erased if their processing is necessary

by law to retain the data. The municipality relied on Article 17(3)(b) GDPR and Article 7.3.8(3) of the Youth Act to argue that it was obliged to retain

assistance under Article 2.3 of the Youth Act and that deletion would violate the Archives Act (Archiefwet) and Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. The mother objected

to the Norwegian DPA. The DPA found that the exceptions under Article 17(3)(b) and (d) GDPR applied in this case, since the controller had vuewed the information

virtue of Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. Indeed, it further is justified that the task carried out in the public interest under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR does not constitute

under Article 17 is not applicable as long as the retention period runs, as stated in Article 17(3)(b). Archiving as such does not breach the GDPR. Consequently

rise to the exclusion ground for the right to erasure pursuant to Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. However, the DPA noted that the controller not only published the

pursuant to Article 17(1) GDPR, and secondly, that the DPA must also decide on the scope of the exceptions that follow from Article 17(3)(b) GDPR and 17(3)(d)GDPR

cannot obtain the deletion of the data referred to in Article 17 GDPR, because Article 17 (3) (b) GDPR precludes this. By publishing the decision, the District

such a fulfilment by Article 12(3) & (4) GDPR. For this reason, an administrative fine of 1000 EUR was imposed (Article 83(5)b GDPR). Share your comments

based on Article 17 of the GDPR. There are a number of exceptions to the right to erasure. For example, Article 17(3)(b) and (c) of the GDPR provide that

base the processing of personal data on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The court held that pursuant to Article 17(3) GDPR there is no obligation for a government

proportionate (Article 7 and 8 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) and in compliance with Article 6(2) and (3) GDPR. According to Article 6(3) GDPR, the legal

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

consent under Article 7(3), object under Article 21 GDPR or if the processing is in fact compliant with the principles of Article 5(1) GDPR. Simply listing

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

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

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

(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

the data subject's erasure request (Article 17 GDPR) and their Article 22 GDPR claim. In relation to Article 17 GDPR, the Court held that the Municipality

with Article 13, Article 14 GDPR gives expression to the principle of transparency enshrined in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and further defined in Article 12 GDPR

made pursuant of Article 17 GDPR. However, this is different when Article 17(3) GDPR applies, which describes that Article 17(1) and 17(2) do not apply

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

too. In the controller’s view this is allowed under Article 17(3)(b) GDPR and Article 17(3)(e) GDPR, as the information was kept for legal compliance purposes

freedoms of individuals", as stated in Article 35(1) and further elucidated in Article 35(3) and Article 35(4) GDPR. The WP29 developed a list of criteria

between Article 21(3) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR on the right to erasure must be considered. The tight relationship between Article 21(3) and Article 17(1)(c)

Kühling/Buchner, DSGVO, Article 2 GDPR, margin number 15 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Bäcker, in Wolff, Brink, BeckOK Datenschutzrecht, Article 2 GDPR, margin number

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

(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)

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

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 32 GDPR, p. 636 (Oxford University Press 2020). Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 32 GDPR, margin number

and (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)

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

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

not directly mentioned by Article 33(3)(b)-(d) GDPR could be shared as additional information by the controller Article 34(3) GDPR lists three exemptions

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

will not have to submit another request for erasure under Article 17(1)(b) GDPR. Article 7(4) GDPR provides some useful guidance on the factors to be taken

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

out pursuant to Article 83(1) GDPR. This part of Article 83 concerns the principle of "unity of action" (see above). With Article 83(3) GDPR, the legislator

respect of Article 33. If a controller who is not established in the EU but falls under the scope of Article 3(2) or Article 3(3) of the GDPR experiences

compliance with the GDPR. Article 28(3)(h) GDPR enables such a task in case processors are used. According to Article 28(3)(h) GDPR, the processor should

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

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

all related decisions in Category:Article 3 GDPR EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1)

relevance of Article 29 GDPR were rooted in the fact that Article 28(3)(b) GDPR already seems to cover much of the scope of Article 29 GDPR. More specifically

Garante. For example, Article 3 reiterates the general principles of fairness and transparency of the proceeding before the DPA. Article 12 ensures a right

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

and Article 58 (2) GDPR (b) condemns the Applicant for violating: - Article 5 (1) (a) and (b) of the GDPR, - Article 5 (2) of the GDPR, - Article 6 (1)

years as per Article 45(3) GDPR, and subject to regular reporting, which Article 97(2) GDPR provides for. The third paragraph of Article 97 GDPR, obliges the

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

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 carried

EDPB in accordance with Article 70(1)(b) GDPR. According to Article 45(5) GDPR, the continued monitoring referred to in paragraph 3, or other information

provided for in Article 52(3) GDPR and Articles 53(3) and 53(4) GDPR. For more information on SA members and staff, please refer to Article 52(2) GDPR (SA members)

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

similar to the ones laid out by Article 50 GDPR. Article 50 GDPR is divided in two different parts: letters (a) and (b) aim for cooperation with other

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

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

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

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

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

pursuant to Article 55 or 56 or by the Board pursuant to Article 63. In the case of accreditation pursuant to point (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article, those

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

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

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

Regulation (GDPR), Article 76 GDPR, p. 1111-1112 (Oxford University Press 2020). Docksey, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article

processing (Article 36(3)(c) GDPR); the contact details of the Data Protection Officer (DPO) (Article 36(3)(d) GDPR); a copy of the DPIA (Article 36(3)(e) GDPR)

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 delegated

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

purposes of Article 17 TFEU and the DPD, and the Advocate General's Opinion in the same case suggests that this may be true also under Article 91 GDPR”. See

proposed amendments to the GDPR (pursuant to Article 70(1)(b) GDPR). Although not explicitly mentioned in Article 69(2) GDPR, the requirement that the Board

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

decisions in 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

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

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

Articles 58(1)(d) or 58(3)(a) and 58(3)(b) GDPR do not qualify as decisions and cannot be subject to legal actions under Article 78(1) GDPR. A data subject has

information. The data subject could also not rely on Article 17(3)(b) GDPR nor on Article 18(1)(c) GDPR in order to prevent the automatic deletion of the

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 38 GDPR, p. 707 (Oxford University Press 2020). Bergt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 38 GDPR, margin number

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

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

occupation. For example, Article 52(2) GDPR requires SA members to remain free from external influence and Article 52(3) GDPR entails a prohibition of

Press 2020). Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. CJEU

infringement committed to Article 12.3 and 12.4 GDPR as well as to Articles 11 §3, 11/1 § 3, 11/2§3 and 11/3 §3 of the law of 3 August 2012 . 2.3.2. With regard to

right to erasure on behalf of Mr. X, please informs that pursuant to Article 17 (3b) GDPR I cannot give a favorable response since the processing of personal

situation, Article 95 GDPR will not be relevant, and the GDPR applies as normal. Notably, Recital 173 GDPR, which relates to Article 95 GDPR, omits reference

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

interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. On the erasure obligations under Article 17 GDPR, the CJEU held that under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR SCHUFA will be under

dsb.gv.at/dam/jcr:ee7b155a-0a1f-4d00-98e9-902314c7022d/Datenschutzbericht%202022.pdf Report: Europe’s governments are failing the GDPR by Brave, page 6 -

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

the personal data to be provided pursuant to Article 15(1) GDPR: must Article 15(3) first sentence of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that, due to the

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

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

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR; 2. Did not provide the complainant with enough information prior to the processing, in violation of Article 13 GDPR; 3. Processed

personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. Their processing would require the data subjects' explicit consent under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and § 151(4) GewO,

as there is no reference to Article 17 GDPR. The DSB decided that there is no ground for erasure under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. According to the DSB there

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

addition to Article 17(3)(b) of the GDPR, paragraph 1 applies accordingly in the case of Article 17(1)(a) of the GDPR, if the deletion would conflict with statutory

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

erasure provided for in Article 17 GDPR? b)      that person is not entitled to a right of objection as referred to in Article 21 GDPR? 3.      If the answer

regard to the criteria set out in Article 83.2 of the GDPR for breach of Articles 38.1, 38.3, 39.1 a) and 39.1 b) of the GDPR. 80. Regarding the amount of the

not be based on Article 45. Article 46.1 provides, among other things, that in the absence of a decision in accordance with Article 45.3 a personal data

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 regard

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

accordance with article 89.2 of the LPACAP). B.B.B. INSPECTOR/INSTRUCTOR C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 15/17 EXHIBIT File index

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

administrative fine for the infringement of Article 6(1) or Article 6(1)(b) GDPR meet the requirements of Article 4(24) GDPR. 504. The EDPB decides that the relevant

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

did not react either. GDPR applicable? (Article 3(2) GDPR) The DPA held that the GDPR was applicable pursuant of Article 3(2) GDPR. Because the controller

under Article 17(3) GDPR. Two doctors sued a platform for deletion of their basic profile set up on the platform without their consent under Article 17 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

around the processing of personal data subject to Article 10 GDPR. Pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the Privacy Appeals Board conducted a balancing test

of personal data of data subjects guaranteed by Article 44 GDPR and consequently breached Article 44 GDPR. The DPA issued a fine of 300,000 SEK (approx.

pursuant to Article 17(1)(d) GDPR since the data was unlawfully processed. The defendant claimed that its activities fall under exception in (Article 85 GDPR)

established on Article 45. Article 46.1 provides, among other things, that in the absence of a decision in accordance with Article 45.3 a personal data

objected to its processing pursuant to Article 21(1) of the GDPR (Article 17(1)(a), (c)(1) and (d) of the GDPR). A request for erasure would therefore

Union (Article 3.2);19 b. the third scenario concerns the application of the PGRD to processing of personal data in the Union (Article 3.3) (b) the staff

third parties (article 83.2.k, of the GDPR in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD). The Judgment of the National Court of 10/17/2007 (rec. 63/2006)

2, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3

violated the provisions of Article 17 of the GDPR and Article 21 of the GDPR and urge GLOBAL CAPITAL GROUP SPAIN, S.L. with NIF B87258091, so that, within

IMPOSE COMMUNITY OWNERS B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of ONE THOUSAND

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

IMPOSE B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 6.1 and another of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 letters a) and b) of the

taken up again at Article 5.1(b) of the GDPR under the Principles for the Processing of Personal Data (Chapter II). 16. Article 5.1(b) of the GDMP provides

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

violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the

breach of Article 32 of the GDPR has occurred. B. On the failure to notify the data breach to the CNIL 32. Pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the GDPR, in the

concluded on 16/09/17. The rented property is located in the ***The owner is Ms. A.A.A. with ID ***NIF.1 and the tenants are Mr. B.B.B. and Ms. C.C.C. It

to object to the GDPR does not limit the grounds on which data subjects may request erasure pursuant to Article 17 para. 1 of the GDPR. The data subject

pursuant to Article 17(2) DPA Act. 9. Moreover, as regards the one-stop-shop mechanism, Article 56 GDPR states: "Without prejudice to Article 55, the supervisory

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

according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, is data personnel and their protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

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

then enter a password before gaining access to the computer. 3.3.3 Control of logging 3.3.3.1 Facts The OLVG information security & privacy policy states

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

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE D. B.B.B. with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of the Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of

02/2021 - 14/26 3. Motifs 3.1 Compétence de la Chambre de Résolution des Litiges (Article 2 AVG ; Article 4 WOG) 55. Conformément à l'article 2, paragraphe

council in Greece to cease their processing activities, under Article 58(2) GDPR and Article 15(8) of Law 4624/2019, because of an unresolved data breach

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 6 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, and classified as very

not be based on Article 45. Article 46.1 provides, among other things, that in the absence of a decision in accordance with Article 45.3 a personal data

norm addressee of Chapter V GDPR. The bB be directly responsible for BF2, which violated Art. 44 ff GDPR. Regarding The GDPR is applicable to the processing

territorial application of the requirements set out in Article 82 of the Data Protection Act is set out in Article 3, paragraph I, of the same Act, which states:

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

this case under Article 6(1)(a) or 6(1)(c)? If Article 6(1)(a) applies, do the requirements for parental consent under Article 8 GDPR also apply? Did the

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

The heading of Article 6(1) and the wording “has given” in Article 6(1)(a) support this interpretation. It follows logically from Article 6 and Recital

5; 110/1984, of November 26, FJ 3; 89/1987, of June 3, FJ 3; 231/1988, of December 2, FJ 3; 197/1991, of October 17, FJ 3, and in general the SSTC 134/1999

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

€600. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to B.B.B.. THIRD: ORDER to B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, which by virtue of article 58.2.d) of the RGPD, within a period

intention to infringe either article 5(1)( c) or article 34(1) of the GDPR. Legal framework 8.1. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR “Personal Data shall be:

in particular of children was in breach of Article 5, Article 6, Article 8, Article 9, and Article 25 GDPR. Consequently, the DPA urgently imposed upon

that “Recital 65 of the GDPR also includes the exception of the legal defense as provided for in article 17.3.e of the GDPR to the right to erasure",

breaching Article 12(3) GDPR, since it failed to notify the data subject that her erasure request was satisfied, as well as Article 24(1) GDPR, given that

in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1, preamble and under b, of the GDPR. 4.4. Article 6, paragraph 1, opening words, of the GDPR stipulates that processing

violated Articles 12(3), (4), 13(2)(b), 30(1)(d) and (g) of the GDPR and issued a warning by virtue of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR. Due to the anonimisation

Protection Regulation (2016/679) Article 12 (4), Article 17 (3), Article 21 (2) and (3), Article 25 (2), Article 58 (2) (b) Section 2 of the Health Care Professional

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

online booking platform, for failing to comply with Article 12(3) GDPR and because Article 6(1)(f) GDPR was not a valid legal basis to publish personal data

exercise the right of access under Article 15 GDPR and the right to restriction of processing under Article 18 GDPR against three mobile telephone service

investigations the CNIL found five breaches of the GDPR: -         Violation of the right to object, Article 21(2) GDPR: no procedure was implemented to ensure effectively

Agency RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infraction of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of €10

infringement of Article 12(3) GDPR, as explained above, under the provisions of Article 83 of the GDPR, I take into account the following mitigating (1-3) and aggravating

in accordance with Article 6 (1). Travel cards have also referred to Article 17 (1) (b) of the Data Protection Regulation. 3, letter b, according to which

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

and Article of 11Law No. 3471/2006, in accordance with Article 13(58i2) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 83(1)(a) of the GDPR. 5 of the GDPR, and

significant negligent action (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) and that basic personal identifiers were affected (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The economic volume of the

not be employee consent [Article 6(1)(a)], due to the nature of the employer-employee relationship.' 3. Rationale 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 According to Articles

violated Article 6 and Article 32 GDPR. The DPA seems to consider the authentication procedure itself as "processing" and therefore Article 32 GDPR applies

in relation to the purpose pursued, in violation of Article 29(1) of Law 125(I)/2018. Article 85 GDPR mandates member states to legislate for the reconciliation

protection regulation's article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letter a, Article 24, cf. Article 28, subsection 1, Article 35, subsection 1, as

webmasters and internet users to freedom of expression and information under Article 17(3). The DPA issued a sanction fee because Google failed to comply with

proposing that B.B.B. with NIF *** NIF.1, with a fine of € 1,000 (thousand euros) for the violation of article 21 of the LSSI, typified in article 38.4.d) of

application of Article 17.3.b, the complainant cannot invokea reason provided for in article 17.1 or 17.2 for requesting the erasure of data concerning him.b) The

infringement of Article 32 GDPR. Therefore, the Spanish DPA issued a warning sanction for each violation of Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR. AEPD highlighted

relied, was repealed, see Article 65 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861. b) The requirements of Article 17 letter d GDPR, to which Article 53 paragraph 1 of Regulation

Networks AB for violating Article 17 GDPR by not deleting personal data of the complainant without undue delay and Article 23 GDPR by providing incorrect

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of article 6 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. FOURTH: On January 16, 2023, the aforementioned

lack of consent, he exercised his right to erasure according to Article 17(1)(b) GDPR. The AEPD found that the complainant had provided the FEDA with his

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

violation of the provisions of Article 5(1)(a), Article 6(1), Article 7(3), Article 12(2), Article 17(1)(b) and Article 24(1) of Regulation 2016/679 imposes

the alleged violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and article 32 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 and 83.4 of the GDPR. The initiation agreement

BACKGROUND FIRST: D. A.A.A. On 10 October 2019, in the name and on behalf of Mr. B.B.B. (hereinafter, the claimant) filed a complaint with the Spanish Data Protection

2023 standard B-VG Art 133 Paragraph 4 DSG §24 DSG §4 GDPR Art 12 GDPR Art 15 GDPR Art 15 Paragraph 1 litc GDPR Art77 UWG §26b paragraph 1 B-VG Art. 133

and 13 GDPR? Is the information provided to data subjects throughout the subscription process in compliance with the provisions of Article 13 GDPR? Does

principlesprocessing of subparagraphs b '. y '. d 'and e' of par. 1 of article 5 as well as of article 6 par. 1ΓΚΠΔ ... ». 3. Reasoning 3.1. The data contained in an

been deleted by the employer upon request pursuant to Article 16, Article 17 and Article 5(1)(d) GDPR (inaccuracy of personal data). Therefore, the employer

An employer should explore the specific exceptions in Article 9(2)(b) GDPR to Article 9(2)(j) GDPR to lawfully process health-related data of employees

Data in the External Referral Register. (…)” 3 Review 3.1 In an introductory application pursuant to Article 46 of the Personal Data Protection Act (Wbp)

complainant as per Article 17 GDPR, as well as his/her right as a consumer to refuse unsolicited commercial phone calls, as per Article 21 GDPR in connection

of article 17 of the GDPR. X Classification of the infringement of article 17 of the GDPR The aforementioned infringement of article 17 of the GDPR supposes

consent of the 10 complainant (article 6.1 a) of the GDPR combined with article 7 of the GDPR), (2) article 6.1 c) of the GDPR in that the publication results

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

for infringing the following provisions: -Article 17 GDPR – Right to Erasure - €50000 fine -Article 32 GDPR – Failure to implement appropriate technical

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

captured in activities and/or interviews related to the activity of the B.B.B. TEAM, and may be published on the company's social networks, corporate website

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

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

period allotted to it to do so (Article 15.1 combined with Article 12.3. of GDPR as well as Article 12.2. of the GDPR (obligation to facilitate the exercise

provided when personal data are obtained from the data subject (Article 13(1)(b) and Article 13(2)(b) of the DGPS), the Inspection Service notes that the respondent's

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

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

grounds as per Article (6)(1)(f) to process the personal data in question. The case revolved around neighbours A and B, who had a conflict. B had installed

entrepreneur. The DPA found that the controller violated Article 31 GDPR and Article 58(1)(e) GDPR and issued a warning to the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur

violation of the Article 12 of the GDPR, in conjunction with Article 17 of the GDPR. V Classification of the infringement of article 12 of the GDPR The aforementioned

copy of the Electoral Census had been delivered to its representative, Mr. B.B.B, for the purposes provided for in the LOREG (doc.1). Together with said copy

and independence, as normally required by Article 38(3) GDPR. Regarding the breach of Article 39(1)(b) GDPR, the audit report pointed to the absence of

the following article. Once this period has expired, the interested party may consider his or her claim to be accepted. THIRD: Article 17 of the RGPD provides

1 f) GDPR) (and the obligations arising from it – Article 32 GDPR) and the principle of purpose (Article 5 § 1 b) GDPR) which the principle of security

an infringement of Article 5 (1) a), b) and c) and (2) of the GDPR and Article 24 (1) of the GDPR; and - an infringement of article 8 of the law of 21

processing is based on consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, the consent must meet the requirements of, among others, Article 7 GDPR. The DPA observed deficiencies

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 that

Customer based on Article 58 (2) point b) of the GDPR, because violated: - Article 6 (1) of the GDPR, 16 - Article 5 (2) of the GDPR, - Article 7 (1) of

laid down in Article 12(b) and Article 12(1)(b) Federal Basic Law, to order the defendant to pay the costs. 14(1)(a) DS-RL / Article 17(3)(a) DS-GVO, the

the meaning of Article 83 and recital 148 of the Regulation”. The Garante hence reprimanded Barclays pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Share your comments

Administrator of D. B.B.B., the company has not changed their legal representatives. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD

volition investigation into CP&A's compliance with Article 9, as well as Article 32 GDPR. Since Article 9 GDPR prohibits the processing of special categories

issues a reprimand under Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. After this, the DPA draws attention to the fact that pursuant of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, data must be processed

paying profiles. II.4. Article 12(1),(2) and (3), Article 17, Article 19, Article 24(1) and Article 25(1) AVG 63. Article 12 (1) GDPR stipulates that the

according to Article 9(2)(a) GDPR. On the basis of the information gathered, the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 9 GDPR. As a result

(see Article 19.2, Article 79.3 of the Basic Law) and ensures this protection also with regard to the Union Treaties (see Article 23.1 sentence 3 of the

reasonable (BayVGH, B. 3.5.2019 - 11 ZB 19.213 - juris marg. 16; SächsOVG, B.v. 10.1.2020 - 6 B 297/19 - juris marg. 3; OVG NW, B.v. 10.9.2019 - 8 B 774/19 - juris

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

based on Article 6.1.f) of the GDPR, but not for all processing based on this article. […] 73 74Investigation report, page 22, point 4.4.2.3.3. WP 260 rev

latest at the time of the first communication (Art. 14(3)(a) and (b) GDPR). However, Art. 14(1) to (4) GDPR shall not apply if and to the extent that the data

such processing to be legitimate on the basis of Article 9 (2) (B) GDPR in conjunction with Article 32 GDPR" (see note cited, p. 4) (see footnote cit., p

infringement of Article 31 GDPR in conjunction with Article 58(1)(e) GDPR. The AEPD, therefore, agreed to impose a penalty of € 20000 under Article 83(5)(e) GDPR

analogously, Section 823 (1) and (2) BGB in conjunction with Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR. Claims under data protection law could be asserted by way

articles 12.5 and 15.3 of the Regulation (UE)2016/679 and in the paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law "FIFTH: The article 17 of the RGPD establishes

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

breached Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Therefore, the DPA handed down a 'call to order' against the joint controllers for breaching Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, and no

(e) and 13(2)(a) GDPR. Thus, it ordered the controller to comply with the GDPR. In addition it fined € 10,000 under Article 58(2)(i) GDPR for the violation

(k) GDPR); the fact that basic personal identifiers are affected (83 (2) (g) GDPR); the intentionality or negligence of the infringement (83 (2) (b) GDPR)

alleged violation of article 6.1) typified in the Article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT as instructor D. B.B.B. and as secretary to

consent would not have been systematically required. 2.3 The purpose of the treatment 39. Article 5.1(b) of the GDMP establishes that personal data must be

right of freedom of expression and information within the meaning of Article 17(3)(a) GDPR. The controller also stated that there were compelling legitimate

explanatory statement of the law, Article 10 defines the Authority’s competence in compliance with Article 55 GDPR.Article 55 GDPR provides for a restriction

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

thousand euros), under¬ Article 6.1 (a) and Article 5.1 (a) of the GDPR, under consideration as ‘very serious’, in¬ Article 71 (1) (a) and (b), respectively, of

reasons, article 780, 3° of the Judicial Code, article 149 of the Constitution and article 6 of the ECHR - the pleas not explicitly stated. 17.3.3. The Procurement

the principle of storage limitation 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

consent, in line with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The Court recalled that Article 31 of the Croatian Law on the Implementation of the GDPR stipulates that the

consent, is in violation of Article 17(1)(b) of the GDPR. 8. On the basis of Article 58, Paragraph 2, Point d) of the GDPR, the Authority instructs Customer

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

concerned an alleged violation of the applicant's right of erasure (Article 17 GDPR). However, the conflicting information had been anonymized by the webmaster

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

on 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021 and 03/15/2021. The issuer is identified as YOIGO. SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December

executed. Legal basis: Article 4 lines 1, 2 and 5, Article 11 paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 12 paragraph 2, Article 17 paragraph 1 and Article 58 paragraph 2 lit

obligations arising from article 12.3 and 4 of the GDPR (methods for exercising the data subject's rights) and Article 15.1.b) and c) 5 of the GDPR (right of access

market participants. Specifically, these are Sections 17(3), 3(5) ApBetrO, 43 AMG, 11(1) sentence 1 no. 3, no. 7 and no. 11 HWG, and Section 14(2) no. 1 BerufsO

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

right of access under Article 15 of the GDPR and the right to erasure (‘forgotten’) under Article 17 of the GDPR, Article 12 of the GDPR on measures to exercise

points b) and d) and article 83, paragraph 4, al. a), all documented regulation.-In addition, under the terms of article 83, paragraph 3 of the GDPR, the

General Data Protection Regulation Article 5(1)(a), (b) and (c). Article 7 Article 9 Article 25 paragraph 2 Article 58 Article 83 Data Protection Act Section

SAU, as a result¬ of an infringement of Article 48 (1) (b) of the LGT, which is classified as minor in Article 78 (11) of the LGT, with a fine of EUR 20

fundamental principles of the GDPR, notably Article 5(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The DPA found violations of various provisions of the GDPR. It held that the controller

Articles 57(1) and 58(2) GDPR for the processing of personal data without the consent of the data subject, as foreseen in Article 6 GDPR. Firstly, the DPA found

pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Failure to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with the GDPR The DPA

welfare centres, B.S. 25 August 2011. Decision on the merits 39/2020- 9/23 ... 42. Article 20(3) of the Local Electoral Decree states: "§3. The Municipal

subject to Article 85 GDPR and § 9(1) of the Austrian Data Protection Act? Did the respondent violate the complaint's right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR

Data Protection Agency sanction B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, with a fine of

infraction of the article 22.2 of the LSSI, due to the deficiencies detected on its website regarding the "Cookies policy". APPOINT: Mr. B.B.B. as Instructor

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

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE Don B.B.B., with NIF *** NIF.1, for a violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of

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

Pursuant to Article 83 GDPR in conjunction with Article 4 No. 7 and 8 GDPR, fines for violations of the GDPR pursuant to Article 83(4) to (6) GDPR are not

decided under Article 17(1)(c), it is not obvious how it reflects the standards for deletion/delisting under those articles in the GDPR, as opposed to

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

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)

chalet in which 3 of us live. tenants leased to Mr. B.B.B.. This house has a terrace and swimming pool for use shared. The aforementioned B.B.B., with the collaboration

envisaged as follows. 17. In paragraph 3.3. Legal Protection' of the AVG Implementation Act, Article 34 reads as follows: Article 34. Applicability of the

safeguards of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR). The Court explained that the Directive and GDPR do not indicate that EU legislature has chosen to

the light of Article 13 of the AVG. In this respect, the Inspectorate refers to column 3 of the table below.3 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Privacy policy

IMPOSE RAISE MARKETING, SL, with NIF B67543355, for a violation of Article 48.1.b) of the LGT, typified in Article 78.11 of the LGT (minor offense), a fine

However, the right for deletion could not be granted in accordance with Article 17 GDPR. Resolution No. R/00665/2022 is highlighted by a case concerning a claimant

the claimed party, for the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. Once the initiation agreement was notified,

paragraphs 1 and 2 and paragraph b) of paragraph 3, all of article 35, and paragraph a) of paragraph 4 of article 83, all GDPR, with a fine of up to €20,000

processing as per Article 5(1)(b), nor legal grounds as per Article 6. In sum, the DPA found that NIF had breached Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (f), Article 6, and Article

identify the data subject and it shall justify the reasons, as per Article 12(3) GDPR. AEPD stated that, with the documentation provided, the data subject

of the duty of information as per article 13 GDPR. The DPA imposed thus a fine of €1000 for violating Article 13 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

personal data (Article 9 GDPR)? Does the data controller have a legitimate interest to process credit card data of recurring purchasers under Article 6(1)(f)

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

the defendant for an infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR a warning penalty in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

case fell under the household exception found in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. According to this provision, the GDPR does not apply to the processing of personal data

klacht door de klager of het zonder voorwerp worden ervan. 17. Zoals uitgezet in haar Beslissing 17/2020,1 is de Geschillenkamer een orgaan van de GBA, opgericht

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

DPIA cf. Article 35 - clearly inform students cf. Article 12 that a) it's voluntary to participate in the survey cf. Article 13(2)(f), and b) that their

under Article 15 GDPR, in a timely manner as well as in clear and transparent form. Second, the DPA looked at the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR

section of Investigated Entities. It also provides other data:Name: B.B.B.Surname: B.B.B.Address: ***ADDRESS.1Contact e-mail: ***EMAIL.1Contact telephone:

12/35 3. Justification 3.1.1. Regarding the purpose limitation findings (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and the lawfulness of processing (Article 6.1 GDPR) 12. In

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

more exceptions from those contained in art. 3. 4 GDPR. In this sense, those provided for in art. 34.3 a) and b). C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid

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

(3) (b)follows closely the terms also used in Article 6 (1) (e) [or the Union legislatorin Article 17 (3) (b), it essentially merged what is already close

database. The request for erasure under Article 17(1) GDPR is not applicable, because under Article 17(3)(e) GDPR, the processing was necessary for the defence

with the provisions of article 85 of the LPACAP. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to B.B.B.. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD,

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), the existence of the

personal data was based on an agreement under Article 6 (b) and a legitimate interest of the controller under Article 6 (f) to continue processing the data in

protected by article 5 par. 1 item a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR and b) directs a reprimand, according to article 58 par. 2 b) GDPR, to the complained

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

Agency RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD, a fine of €10

envisaged as follows. 22. In paragraph 3.3. Legal Protection' of the AVG Implementation Act, Article 34 reads as follows: Article 34. Applicability of the General

for erasure within the meaning of Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation? 3° Must Article 24 and Article 5(2) of the General Data Protection

of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance with the provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Agency Spanish

the alleged violation of article 6.1. of RGPD typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. SECOND: APPOINT D. B.B.B. as an instructor. and as

(EU), of Article 16 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and article 51 of the GDPR. Regarding of Article 51 of the GDPR in particular

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

ruling and the GDPR; breach of Article 28 GDPR (the choice of a the processor does not provide sufficient guarantees); breach of Article 32 GDPR (lack of appropriate

basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR: “...there is a risk that the Draft Decision’s failure to establish Whatsapp IE's infringement of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, pursuant

relief against a controller according to Article 17(1) GDPR. The court found that the requirements of Article 17(1) GDPR were met and that the already issued

for the health center established in article 17. The LOPD, in relation to articles 17, 18 and, especially article 15 of the LAP, recognizes a right of

neither to the claimant, nor to Mr. B.B.B. Likewise, a search of all the SMS sent by the system in the file of Mr. B.B.B. and the only phone number that appears

personal data (Article 8 Charter and Article 8 ECHR) is in contrast to the right to protection of property (Article 17 Charter and Article 1 First Protocol

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

data breach and at least the data and measures referred to in Article 33(3)(b), (c) and (d). 3. The communication to the person concerned referred to in paragraph

subject Article 15: Right of access Article 16: Right of correction Article 17: Right of deletion Article 18: Right to limit processing Article 19: Obligation

in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 inin relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of theEuropean

accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. Ten DPAs (AT, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL, NO, SE) raised objections, in accordance with Article 60(4) GDPR, to the Draft

of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance with the provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Agency Spanish

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 processing

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

[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

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

several violations of the GDPR. Firstly, the USL had not documented its processing activities as required by Article 30 GDPR, despite the two years between

request under Article 17; request additional information necessary to confirm the data subject's identity is provided. According to Article 17 (1) (a), the

issue, the DPC held that the controller did not infringe Article 17(1) GDPR nor Article 12(3) GDPR as it duly responded to the erasure request within 30 days

under section 165 or Article 77 of the GDPR, the Commissioner- (a) fails to take appropriate steps to respond to the complaint, (b) fails to provide the

which article of the GDPR was violated. However, considering the plaintiff made a request for the removal of her data, it is likely that Article 17 GDPR

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

processing might be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest) and - regarding health data - on Article 9(2)b) GDPR (fulfilling obligations under

authentication via a third service provider cannot constitute a breach of Article 6 of the GDPR when it implies that the personal data of the data subjects are not

the costs of the proceedings at both instances. 1.3 On 3 May 2019 the further productions B-30 to B-41 inclusive were received at the Registry of the Court

third parties (Article 83.2.k of the RGPD in relation to Article 76.2.b of the LOPDGDD) The balance of the circumstances referred to in Article 83.2 of the

which that article 38, section 6, of the GDPR is registered, it should be noted that, according to article 39, paragraph 1, letter b) of the GDPR, the protection

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

of his personal data would be based 5. 1, a) GDPR, Article 6, Article 12.1 GDPR and Article 14.1 a) GDPR. 67. Moreover, a controller, in this case defendant

execution of the contract (article 6.1.b, of the RGPD).However, to protect the treatment carried out by EDP in article6.1.b) of the RGPD it is necessary

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

more details. Article 2: Substantive scope Article 2.2.c: Exclusively personal or domestic activity Article 3: Territorial scope Article 4.1: Personal

private doctor for violating Article 32 GDPR by making his patients' health data freely accessible on the web, and Article 33 GDPR by not notifying the DPA

Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 17/17 3. Violation of article 34 of the RGPD in relation to article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the RGPD, with

DSGVO/BDSG , Article 15 paragraph 33; Schaffland/Holthaus in Schaffland/Wiltfang, GDPR, Article 15 GDPR paragraph 44; loc. A. Härting, CR 2019, 219). 136 (3) In

(see also infra B). 48. With regard to point (i), Recital 45 GDPR and Article 6.3 GDPR specify that processing based on Article 6.1 e) GDPR “must be based

personal data under Article 17 GDPR. On 21 September 2021, the controller confirmed the deletion, as required by Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR. However, the complainant

confidentiality established by Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Was there a personal data breach? The AEPD considered that there was an infringement of Article 5(1)(f), as there

conducts under Article 41 GDPR (redacted as "code S***", code M*** and code U***"). These codes had been approved by the DSB under Article 40(5) GDPR. Inverstigations

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: After the period granted for the formulation

against the controller. Based on Article 72(1)(b) of the national data protection law, and Articles 83(1) and 83(2) GDPR, the DPA considered aggravating

to [plaintiff] now that the court in para. 2.24. from the 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 final judgment (see paragraph 2.8 above) had already ruled

and c); 6, par. 1, letter c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, letter b) and Article 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, caused by the conduct of the Istituto Comprensivo

documents and information he deems pertinent, in accordance with article 89.2 of the LPACAP). B.B.B. HEAD OF AREA PROCEDURE INSTRUCTOR C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

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)

according to which data subjects may request delisting as under Article 17.1 GDPR. 30. The GDPR therefore changes the burden of proof, providing a presumption

possible secrecy of correspondence (Provision 1.3.2007, in G. U. No. 58 of 10.3.2007, spec. point 5.2, letter b), This is in contrast with the provisions of

a bank was subject to the GDPR in its capacity as a controller and should have answered access requests under Article 15 GDPR.   The complainants are clients

cookies, as per Article 22(2) Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI). This law regulates cookies, connected to Article 13 GDPR. The decision

incorrect as until 9/3/2019 the Pec of the company was tbsrls@pec.it, therefore he [has] never heard of this request. I also specify that from 9/3/2019 to today

additional registration *** TELEPHONE.3” SIXTH: TDE has declared that the mobile line *** TELEPHONE.2 was owned by D. B.B.B. who requested portability from MOVISTAR

prove the lawfulness of processing according to Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and for violating Article 12(2) GDPR by creating undue barriers to the exercise of the

ASEP asked the HDPA for a prior consultation according to Article 36(1) and 36(3)(b) GDPR after it carried out a DPIA, which showed that the mentioned

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

hereinafter, “The person claimed”), by virtue of the complaint presented by D. *** B.B.B., (In addition lante, “the claimant”), and based on the following: BACKGROUND

File E / 00519/2019, about a letter dated 12/12/2018, the complainant being B.B.B. . (pa- dre of the representative of the claimant in this proceeding, as

These findings are not in dispute. 3. Legal assessment: To A) 3.1. According to § 38 AVG, which according to § 17 VwGVG is to be applied accordingly in

2019, GDPR Art. 37, para. 1; Döpfler , EU-GDPR and BDSG, 2nd edition 2020, GDPR Art. 37, marginal 1; Paal / Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, 2nd ed. 2018, GDPR Art.

based on a legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, so that the principle of lawfulness under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR is violated. This is due to the fact

violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, letter c) and e), paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, letter b), of the Regulation and Article 19, paragraph 3, of the Code

Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/8IBy virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to eachcontrol authority,

of the GDPR. To 2): c) Article 50b (2) DSG 2000 (for the period prior to 25 May 2018) (d) Article 13(3) DSG (for the period from 25 May 2018) To 3): c) Article

third parties (article 83.2.k, of the GDPR in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD). The Judgment of the National Court of 10/17/2007 (rec. 63/2006)

Correos, was delivered at destination on 12/16/21, being the receiver: Mrs. B.B.B.. ***NIF.1. THIRD: On 12/26/21, by the Director of the Spanish Agency for

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

processed in accordance with Article 32 (2) of the Regulation. 2nd 3.3. Article 33 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1 and Article 34 (1). 1 The Data Inspectorate

cases G.B.6 (11 days delay in applying the Registry), G.B.8 (6 days), G.B.9 (3 days including a weekend), G.B.10 (4 days including a weekend) and G.B.11 (5

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

implement 1See e.g. PVN 2019-09 2FOR-2018-07-02-1107. 3 Prop. 56 LS (2017-2018), point 31.3.3.3 4controlling measures in their business. Regulations on

violation of Article 13 GDPR and issued a warning to the controller. The AEPD took into account the following aggravating factors (Article 83 (2) GDPR) to determine

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

Articles 17 and 21 GDPR rights arising to delete certain personal data. 4.17. Google argued at the oral hearing that, on the basis of Article 12 (5) GDPR, it

personal data within the meaning of Article 4, opening words and (1) of the AVG. Based on Article 2, paragraph 1 and Article 3, paragraph 2, of the AVG, the

complainant's computer was accessed (16.5.2018) (note 1.3.2019, p. 4-5). 1.4. On 17 May 2019, pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 5, of the Code, the Office notified

instance, the controller sought to rely upon Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Article 6(1)(e) GDPR establishes a lawful basis for the processing

by the GDPR, on the other, Article 28, paragraph 3 of the GDPR does not provide any indication regarding the obligation to conclude a deed of appointment

to maintain Google search results following an Article 17 erasure request. An online newspaper article from 2012 mentioned the complainant's resignation

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

requirements of Article 6(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR, which cannot be superseded by relying on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR? Is Article 5(1)(c) GDPR (data

by Article 83(2)(b) GDPR, and also the link between the company's activity and the processing of personal data, as provided for by Article 76(2)(b) GDPR

and the 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

infringement of the GDPR, articles: -12 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.b) of the GDPR and 72.1.k) of the LOPDGDD, and -5.1.c) of the GDPR, in accordance

par. 1, letter c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, letter b) of the Regulation and art. 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Code; c) in violation of the prohibition

under Article 58(2) GDPR and impose on the respondent the responsibility to restore the fulfilment of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and of Article 5(1)(b-f) GDPR

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

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

personal data and information under Article 15 GDPR in his Google account, Google has not violated Article 15 GDPR concerning this data/information. As

third parties (article 83.2.k, of the GDPR in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD). The Judgment of the National Court of 10/17/2007 (rec. 63/2006)

DPA held that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to

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 basis

therefore an infringement of Article 5 at the time of the facts. 1, a) GDPR, Article 6, Article 12.1 GDPR and Article 14.1 a) GDPR. 90. In addition, a controller

in the need for a confirmation of acceptance and identification (points 3.3 and 3.5.2 of the General Terms and Conditions for letters nationally and point

indicated in point 3.3 of this decision. 4.3. Safety measures applied to the storage of traffic data. The conduct ascertained in point 3.4 of this decision

4(7) GDPR, and Company A was the processor for the purposes of Article 4(8) GDPR. The DPA found that both Companies A and B had breached Article 31 GDPR and

breach of Article 28 paragraphs 3 and 4 of the GDPR is clear. 2. On the breach of the obligation to ensure data security 49. According to Article 32 of the

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

minutes 3:11:51 and 3:11:57; The video (2) NUM001, between minutes 3:12:06 and 3:12:28; The video (3) NUM002, between the minutes 3:12:54 and 3:13:04; The

regarding - of article L.121-20-3 of the Consumer Code in its wording prior to the law of March 17, 2014 for all contracts, - of article R.132-1 / 4 ° &

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

company result in a breach of Article 37 GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) found that Conseguridad SL had violated Article 37(1)(b) GDPR by not having designated

section 3.3 >>.<< 3.3. Informed manifestation of willThe GDPR reinforces the requirement that consent must be informed. In accordance with theArticle 5 of

for the alleged violation of article 5.1f) of the RGPD in relation to the Article 5 of the LOPDGDD, typified in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. C / Jorge

installing a video surveillance camera system violating Article 22 LOPDGDD and Article 12 GDPR? The Spanish DPA found that the defendant could install

minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and contrary to the obligation to obtain the freely given consent of the data subject under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, when refusal

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

request, violating GDPR Article 12(3) and Article 15. The delay also led to the deletion of requested data, violating Article 5(1) GDPR. A complainant legally

been taken up in Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR under the Principles relating to the processing of personal data (Chapter II). Article 5(1)(b) of the RGPD thus

ESLORA PROJECTOS,SL, with CIF: B95608196 owner of the web pages: *** URL.1 , *** URL.2 and *** URL.3 ,for violation of article 22.2) of the LSSI, punishable

is maintained under Article 6.1 b) to f) of the GDPR and therefore in Article 6.1.c) invoked in the species. Article 6.1 of the GDPR in fact reproduces

and services". B. On the breach of the obligation to inform pursuant to Article 14 of the GDPR 20. According to Article 14 of the GDPR: 1. Where personal

three years, which was in violation of Article 12(3) GDPR. The DPA also determined a violation of Article 17(1)(a) GDPR, because data subject's e-mail accounts

articles 12.5 and 15.3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in the sections 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law. " FIFTH: Article 15 of the RGPD provides

proceedings Article 77 (1) and Article 22 (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation. may be submitted in the case provided for in Under Article 77 (1) of

be erased and thus also violates Article 17.1(c) AVG. 3.2. With regard to the infringement of Article 6.1 and Article 21.4 of the AVG 29. In its statement

under Article 15 GDPR and demanded free access to the historic bank transaction data. The bank argued that this would be a misuse of Article 15 GDPR and

resume. 3 The Marktenhof states in point 4.7. of the judgment article 6, d) and article 6, e) of the GBA law, but this should be read as article 6.1. d)

personal data under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, and ordered the controller to pay the data subject €579.17 in damages under Article 82(1) GDPR. Share your comments

obligation under Article 37(7) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller to comply with his obligations under Article 13(1)(b) GDPR and Article 37(7) GDPR and to publish

par. 3, letter b), of the RGPD; as well as art. 19, par. 3, of the Code, in force at the time of the illegal conduct. In this regard, Art. 83, par. 3, of

in violation of Article 13 GDPR. The questionnaire to subscribe to Nestor did not include all the information required by Article 13 GDPR: there was no information

2 and par. 3, lett. b), of the GDPR; as well as art. 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Code (see also the provision contained in Article 15, paragraph

process these data. Article 29 of the Croatian Labour Act and Article 5(4) of the Labour Law Rulebook (Official Gazette, no. 73/17) refer, among others

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

(articles 12 and 14 of the GDPR); A breach of his right of access (article 15 of the GDPR); A breach of Article 28 of the GDPR with regard to its status

CIF A76539030, for a violation of article 28.3.g) of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.4 b) of the RGPD, and article 74.k) of the LOPDGDD, with the

the article of law and e-point of the regulation provision. In addition, the processing of health information, as defined in point 3 (b). Article 3 of the

third parties (Article 83.2.k of the RGPD in relation to Article 76.2.b of the LOPDGDD) - The turnover or activity figure of the entity (article 83.2.a, of

Data Protection Agency sanction B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 13 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the RGPD, with a fine

violation of article 21 of the LSSICE, classified as serious in article 38.3.d) and c) of said rule, for the alleged infringement of article 48.1.b) of the

according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, are a Personal data and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In the article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

infringement of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD and article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) and b) of the GDPR. FIFTH: On 12/17/2021 the claimant

violation of data minimisation, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. No fines can be imposed against the controller and Article 83(5) GDPR can therefore not be imposed.

Appeals Board assessed if a fine could be imposed as per Article 83(5) GDPR, cf. Article 83(2) GDPR, and in which case, how large it should be. The Board

violation of article 6 of the RGPD, indicated in reason II. IV Article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD states that “ Based on what is established in article 83.5 of

related to in-game chat messages. 3. Reasons for the decision of the DPA 3.1. It follows from Article 15 of the GDPR that the data subject has the right

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

be personal data per Article 4 GDPR. The CNIL then assessed whether the transfers of the data to the US comply with Article 44 GDPR. It considered whether

2020 (procedure A) and 3 February 2020 (procedure B), during the hearing on 25 June 2020 (procedure A) and 25 May 2020 (procedure B), of which the respective

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 by the Municipality

rectification.(article 16 of the GDPR), the right to be forgotten (article 17 of the GDPR), and the right to limit the use ofdata processed unlawfully (article 18

plain. The word "concise" in Article 12(1) GDPR, however, does not mean incomplete, all mandatory information from Article 13 GDPR must still be included. The

violation of article 28.2 typified in Article 83.4 a) GDPR. SIXTY THOUSAND EUROS (€60,000) for alleged violation of article 28.3 typified in Article 83.4 a)

art. 5 and 6 of the GDPR? The DPA held that Regione Campania violated art 5(1)(a)(c), art. 6(1)(c)(e), art. 6(2) and art. 6(3)(b) GDPR, and concluded that

Information about data categories (Art. 15 Para. 1 lit. b GDPR) According to Art. 15 Para. 1 lit b GDPR, there is a right to information about the categories

of 25,000 euros (Article 83, paragraph 2 GDPR; Article 100, §1, 13 ° WOG and Article 101 WOG). 18 55. Taking into account article 83 GDPR and the case law

dispute with [B] has been going on for some time, i.a. due to the acoustics in the house. 2. point of view [B] As in the previous article, Personal Protection

in line with the principle of lawfulness in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as none of the conditions of Article 6 GDPR were satisfied. The data disclosed in the land

the notice board of the neighbour’s community a violation of Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR? Article 9 of Ley de Propriedad Horizontal provides that: "If a summons

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

in tort within the meaning of the above under 3.3. mentioned article. 3.5. The question is whether in this case the place where the harmful event occurred

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

violating Article 5(1) GDPR Article 6 (1) GDPR Article 6(4) GDPR Article 9 GDPR Article 14 GDPR Article 30 GDPR Article 35 GDPR and Article 36 GDPR. The fine

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

with Article 4 WOG. 17. First, it is clear that the content of the disputed e-mail messages constitute personal data within the meaning of Article 4.1.

defendant. Paragraph 17 In particular, such a claim - contrary to the plaintiff's view - does not follow from Art. 82 (1) GDPR. Art. 82 (1) GDPR would probably

of art. 17 of the Regulation of the Guarantor no. 1/2019 are met. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of Legislative

of D.B.B.B. notifications. On July 28, 2022, the Cacabelos City Council sent the address of D. B.B.B. which appears in the municipal register. 3. On August

compliant with data protection rules, on the basis of Article 6(2) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. Then, the Datatilsynet focused on two specific

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

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

right to privacy. Health data are sensitive data covered by Article 9 GDPR. According to Article 137 of the Italian Data Protection Code, health data can

the publication of the press release of 17 June 2020 infringed Article 54(2) GDPR and Article 48(1) and Article 64(3) WOG. This press release described that

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

J10460640 , for aviolation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, in relation towith article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of €

Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 17/28 ANNEX 0 A.A.A. (hereinafter claimant 1). B.B.B. (hereinafter claimant 2). C.C.C. (hereinafter claimant 3). D.D.D. (hereinafter

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

fine on the defendant and stated he has to comply with Article 5(1)(c) and Article 83(2)(a)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

controller with €10,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €25,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. There is a pattern in the Spanish DPA resolutions

subject's data under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. Thus, the data subject was entitled to have the controller delete his personal data per Article 17(1)(d), which allows

Data Authority2019 53 3.3Penaltyforviolatingthesecurityofprocessing 53 3.3.1 Nature, seriousness and duration of the infringement 54 3.3.2 Negligent nature

company, Iberdrola Clientes, S.A.U for infringing Article 21 GDPR, Article 48(1)(b) LGT, and Article 23(4) LOPDGDD. The initial proposed fine was €10000

or by a third party. The court used Article 9(2)(f) GDPR to interpret legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as including the establishment, exercise

15(1)(a)-(h) GDPR. For these reasons, under Article 58 GDPR, the HDPA reprimanded the controller for violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. In addition

the data subjects, therefore breaching Article 6 GDPR, as well as Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Thirdly, Article 30 GDPR stipulates that the controller must keep

Consequently, based on Article 83(5)(a) GDPR, the hospital was fined to pay a fine of EUR 30.000,00 for violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Corrective measures

Claimant 3.- E / 11798/2019 B.B.B. - *** NIF.1 Claimant 4.- E / 05495/2020 C.C.C. - *** NIF.2 Claimant 5.- E / 06303/2020 D.D.D. - *** NIF.3 Claimant 6

in the tax information portals had in any case violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR, because the large-scale and permanent publication of personal

derogant rule, based on the interpretation of Article 95 GDPR in the line of the Rec (173) GDPR and Article 1(2) and 15a of the ePrivacy Directive. The CNIL

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

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

(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

provided for in Article 15 GDPR and Article 13 LOPDGDD was exercised. Secondly, the DPA noted that a valid legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR is required

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

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

lawful bases of Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) in particular, stating that the actions of the respondents were in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR because the complainant's

The DPA was allowed to issue a reprimand, Art. 58(2)(b) GDPR. On the basis of Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR, the DPA was not entitled to order the removal of camera

they could submit an access request pursuant to Article 15, or an erasure request pursuant to Article 17 GDPR (the same was not requested from users who had

CFR Art8 para 11 CFR Art11 para 1 ECHR Art10 para 1 GDPR Art4 no 2 GDPR Art4 no 7 GDPR Art85 para 1 GDPR Art85 para 2 Text GZ: DSB-D123.768/0004-DSB/2019

for the violation of Article 6 GDPR and € 4 000 for the violation of article 13, under the power conferred by Article 83(5) GDPR. Share your comments here

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

breach Article 13 GDPR even if the contact form is not operational? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) held that the defendant, PSI, violated Article 13 GDPR by failing

Articles 6(1)(b), 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) deemed itself competent under Article 58(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 47 of the Spanish