Search results

elements in Article 2(1) are fulfilled, the GDPR applies unless the processing falls under one of the exemptions named in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) GDPR. The first

under Article 57(1)(f) of the GDPR, each supervisory authority is required on its territory to handle complaints which, in accordance with Article 77(1)

Beck, 2018, 2nd edition). We refer, in that respect, to the Commentary on Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023)

the GDPR, and no exception is applicable. Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of the GDPR represents partly a continuation of the first indent of Article 3(2) of Directive

(Articles 58(2)(i) GDPR) & 83 GDPR) and, after having taken into consideration Article 83(2) GDPR's fine measuring principles and ARTICLE 29 Data Protection

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

considered an exemption clause of paragraph 2. Article 4 Act no. 90/2018, cf. also point c, paragraph 2 Article 2 regulation (EU) 2016/679, therefore apply

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

relation to the incident and in light of the powers granted to me by section 58(2)(a) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the DPA decided to issue a warning to

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

exclusively private or domestic activity, which is lawful, based on the 2.2.c, GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The decision

the processing of personal data is not covered by the GDPR, according to Article 2(2)(c) of the GDPR. However, the DPA concluded that Orienteringsret.dk

individual, it should be clarified at the outset that, in accordance with Article 2 (2) of the General Regulation, the General Regulation does not apply to

and that none of the exceptions of Article 2(2) GDPR applied. Hence, it concluded the landlord violated Article 15 GDPR. The landlord filed appeal against

security under Article 2(2)(a) GDPR. The GDPR will not apply if the activity of the controller falls outside the scope of Union Law under Article 2(2)(a). The

stressed that the only exceptions to the GDPR scope of application are provided by Article 2(2) and (3) of the GDPR. These exceptions shall be interpreted

meaning of Article 4(15) GDPR. The DSB founds that the GDPR does not apply due to the household exception provided for in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. Pursuant

and that therefore the exemption under Article 2(2)(c) GDPR applied. Article 2(2)(c) GDPR states that the GDPR will not apply if the data is processed

accordance with Article 15 (1) GDPR. They argued that the scope of application of the GDPR is not excluded according to Article 2 (2) because the GDPR should be

“household exemption” Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. Therefore, such processing of plaintiff’s photos falls within the scope of the GDPR. Given the lack of consent

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

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

such processing was falling under the household exemption (Article 2(2)(c) GDPR), and that the GDPR therefore did not apply. For this reason, the Icelandic

surveillance cameras could fall outside of the scope of the GDPR in line with Article 2(2)(c) GDPR (i.e. processing of personal data "by a natural person in

of the GDPR, which is a condition for a reprimand pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Material scope of the GDPR According to the court, the GDPR applies

document. Concerning the first question, the DPA held that under Article 2(2)(d) GDPR, the Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data

minimization. Therefore, the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR considering that the first camera was also

household activity (as referred to in Article 2 (2) (c) of the GDPR). This means that the provisions of the GDPR and the GDPR Implementation Act apply to the

restrictions. Hence, the exemption to the material scope of the GDPR set in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR could not apply in the case at hand. The Icelandic DPA then

(1) GDPR declares that the GDPR is applicable in addition to the GDPR, without referring to the exceptions in Article 2 (2), (3) and (4) of the GDPR. In

Defence and falls outside the scope of Union law, as foreseen in Article 2(2)(a) GDPR. More precisely, the processing is subject to the specific provisions

regulations 2. On May 24, 2016, Regulation 2016/979 (General Data Protection Regulation) (hereinafter: GDPR ) entered into force. The GDPR has been applicable

are to become part of a file. According to para. Article 4 Act no. 90/2018, Coll. paragraph 2 (c) Article 2 of the Regulation, the Act and the Regulation

of personal data mentioned in Article 2 (2) GDPR are not relevant. Contrary to the plaintiff's view, Article 2(2)(d) GDPR does not apply in the present

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

decision". Similar to the ex-ante information in Article 13(2)(f) and 14(2)(f) GDPR, Article 15(2) GDPR requires that in case the controller transfers data

(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

reliance on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR or at least exercise the right to object under Article 21 GDPR. If the legal basis is Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (i.e. 'legitimate

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

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

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

Directive 95/46 / EC Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (hereinafter: GDPR) repealing Directive And Article 13 (1) to (2) of the GDPR. II. The Authority

Paragraph 2 TFEU and is therefore in accordance with Article 2 Paragraph 2 lit a GDPR is excluded from the material scope of application of the GDPR (VwGH December

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

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

as established in article 2.2 of the RGPD and article 2.2.a) of the LO- PDGDD, the following should be noted: it says to article 2.2 of the RGPD: "two

the GDPR pursuant to Article 2(2)(d). Article 79 GDPR does not explicitly limit judicial remedies to the rights enshrined in Chapter III of the GDPR. Following

applies according to § 1 paragraph 1 sentence 2 im Within the material scope of the GDPR (Art. 2 Para. 1, Para. 2 lit. c). requirement for the The applicability

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

light of Article 2(2)(a) GDPR. The public prosecutor’s office must be considered to be a ‘controller’, within the meaning not only of Article 4(7) GDPR, but

the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR? (2) Is the referring court an independent and impartial court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU read

the meaning of Article 3(7) Directive 2016/680. Therefore, such requests do not fall under the exception provided for in Article 2(2)(d) GDPR, as this data

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

from 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

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

(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)

personal data in accordance with Article 4, number one, GDPR. 3.2.4. The GDPR defines the term processing in Art. 4 Z 2 GDPR by listing a number of possible

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

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

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

accountability obligation enshrined in Article 5(2) GDPR. This theory is not totally convincing. In light of Article 5(2) GDPR, a reversal of burden of proof for

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

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

also submits that were the criteria in Article 3(2)(b) to be met, both Article 2(2)(a) GDPR/ Article 3(2A) UK GDPR operate to take this case beyond the material

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

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

reference, see Article 143 of the Code). However, detailed time-limits can be found in Regolamento n. 2/2019 cited above. Under Article 154 of the Code

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

must also be involved in the drafting of the DPIA under Article 35(2) GDPR and Article 39(1)(c) GDPR, and their advice should be recorded by the controller

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

whether Art. 15 GDPR applies to the investigation files at all, since according to Art. 2 Para. 2 d GDPR, Section 2a Para. 4 AO, the GDPR does not apply

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

applicability of Article 49(1) GDPR, the documentation of suitable safeguards (Article 30(2)(c) GDPR). See commentary under Article 30(1)(e) GDPR. The processor's

obliged to comply with the GDPR provisions as a processor, while the controller could invoke the exemption of Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. The court then refers to

entering the contract, Article 22(2)(a) GDPR does not mention this additional aspect. In any case, the application of Article 22(2)(a) GDPR is always subjected

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

of enforcing the GDPR in Spain. Its head office is in Madrid. The requirement to have a data protection authority stems from Article 44 of the Spanish

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

information as outlined in Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR (see above). Article 26(2) of the GDPR emphasizes the significance of these specific obligations

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)’

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

contrast to Article 23(1)(e) GDPR, which sets out strict requirements for the Union or Member State's law restricting GDPR rights, Article 18(2) GDPR does not

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

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

or infringes the GDPR or any other applicable laws, including national ones. See commentary under Article 77 GDPR. Article 78(1) GDPR establishes both

and jurisdiction provisions (Articles 47(1)(b), 47(2)(d), 47(2)(e), 47(2)(g), 47(2)(i), 47(2)(l) GDPR); a duty for the EU BCR member to accept responsibility

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 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)

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

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

in Category:Article 45 GDPR Kuner, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 45 GDPR, p. 774 (Oxford

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

a binding dispute resolution procedure in accordance with Article 65 GDPR. Article 64(2) GDPR allows any SA, the EDPB Chair or the Commission to request

in principle (see hereunder Article 65(2) GDPR) to adopt a decision under Article 65 GDPR is reached, since Article 64 GDPR only requires a simple majority

functions, a permissive function (Article 88(1) GDPR) and a conditional function (Article 88(2) GDPR). While Article 88(2) GDPR determines the scope of the opening

derogation from Article 64(3) and Article 65(2), an urgent opinion or an urgent binding decision referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall be adopted

to in Article 61(6) GDPR. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93(2) GDPR. → You

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

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

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 49 GDPR, p. 846 (Oxford University Press 2020). EDPB, ‘Guidelines 2/2018 on derogations of Article 49 under Regulation

According to Article 80(2) GDPR, where legislated for by Member States, this right extends to Articles 77, 78 and 79 GDPR, but not Article 82 GDPR. This exclusion

the application of the GDPR. You can find further details about the territorial scope in Article 3 GDPR. According to Article 1(2), the Regulation generally

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

processing (Article 32(1) GDPR) and the general principles of processing set out in Article 5 GDPR. In confirming the above interpretation, Paragraph 2 sets out

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

Hence, Article 89(2) and (3) GDPR also allow for specific derogation to the GDPR for these purposes, as further detailed below. Article 89(1) GDPR provides

consistency mechanism under Article 65(2)(1) GDPR and the adoption of the EDPS’s rules of procedure under Article 72(2) GDPR. Notably, each EDPB member

ng, Article 62 GDPR, margin number 11 (Beck 2018, 2nd edition). Riccio, Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e normativa privacy – Commentario, Article 62 GDPR (Wolters

difference between Article 42(1) GDPR and Article 42(2) GDPR is that in the former, the applicant for certification is subject to the GDPR, while in latter

Chair represents the Board (Article 68(2) GDPR) and is responsible for directing the work of the secretariat (Article 75(2) GDPR). Other specific responsibilities

definition for "processing" in Article 4(2) GDPR). If data is been made public, the applicable provision is Article 17(2) GDPR, provided that all requirements

codes of conduct on the basis of Article 41 of Regulation 2016/679 and of a certification body on the basis of Article 43 of Regulation 2016/679; To ensure

unlike delegated acts made under Article 92 GDPR. Article 93(2) GDPR explicitly provides for the application of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011

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

Datenschutzrecht, Article 73 GDPR, margin number 3 (C.H. Beck 2019, 1st edition). Nguyen, in Gola, DS-GVO, Article 73 GDPR, margin number 2 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd edition);

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

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 delegated

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)

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

with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93(2). You can help us fill this section! Article 43 GDPR explains the procedure involved in establishing

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

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

practices published under Article 70(3) GDPR. Though Article 70(3) GDPR already obliges the EDPB to make these public, Article 71(2) GDPR ensures that the public

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

of the use of GDPR and other aspects which the GDPR leaves for definition to the member states (for ex. Art. 6(3), some aspects of Art. 9(2), Art. 10, Art

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

laid down in Article 57 GDPR. The powers of SAs are both investigative and corrective, which are set out in Article 58 GDPR. Article 52(2) GDPR requires two

one of the 'other administrative or non-judicial' remedies, which Article 78(2) GDPR refers to. If the DPA decides to uphold their decision, they will

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

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

related decisions in Category:Article 16 GDPR Meents, Hinzpeter in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO – BDSG, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 2 (Deutscher Fachverlag, 4th

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

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

Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020). Tosoni, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article

date of effect under Article 94 GDPR. In order to ensure a sense of continuity within the regulatory framework, Article 94(2) GDPR provides that any reference

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

Regulation. Noting that a broader reading of Article 98 GDPR is supported by the wording of Article 2(3) GDPR, which provides that: 'For the processing of

referred to in Article 64. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93(2). Recital 167:

Journal of the European Union. 2. It shall apply from 25 May 2018. There is no relevant recital for Article 99 GDPR. Article 99 GDPR sets out the dates of the

accordance with Article 58(2) [GDPR]”. These is a reference to the information that SAs must keep in internal records according to Article 57(1)(u) GDPR. The report

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

deals with processing within the scope of the GDPR. Part 2 deals with processing outside of the scope of the GDPR. Part 3 deals with processing by competent

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

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

be read jointly with the Decree n° 2019-536 of May 29. According to Article 8(I)(2)(d) of the loi "Informatique et Liberté", a data subject or their representative(s)

to in Article 46(2)(d) GDPR, contractual clauses referred to in Article 46(3)(a) GDPR, or binding corporate rules within the meaning of Article 47 GDPR

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

organisation-fined-for-gdpr-rule-breach-1.4255692?mode=amp https://www.irishlegal.com/article/tusla-fined-40-000-in-second-gdpr-breach https://www.dataprotection

process them. This was already the case under Article 8(7) of the DPD, the precursor of Article 87 GDPR. In many Member States, the processing of NIN and

protected by Article 96 GDPR if it is found to be incompatible with other GDPR provisions. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 96 GDPR It follows

the GDPR by Brave, page 6 - https://brave.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Brave-2020-DPA-Report.pdf Report: Europe’s governments are failing the GDPR by

subject to the GDPR or, in cases where they are not established in the EU, act within the material and territorial scope of the GDPR. Article 48 GDPR refers to

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

here is covered by the GDPR. For further information and relevant legal provisions, please see Article 2(2)(d) GDPR, Articles 1 and 2 LED, and Part 5 and

including claims for damages. 2.   Actions against decisions of the European Data Protection Supervisor, including decisions under Article 63(3), shall be brought

to § 14(1)(1)(6) BDSG the BfDI is responsible for complaints under Article 77 GDPR. The BfDI has to inform the complainant about the ongoing procedure

democratic legitimation necessary under Article 23(1) second sentence in conjunction with Article 20(1) and (2) and Article 79(3) of the Basic Law. Since data

the parties. Section 100 of the Slovak Data Protection Act implements Article 77 GDPR. The complaint shall include (Section 100 (3)): The name, surname, correspondence

the violation of his GDPR rights by the parliamentary committee? The BVwG initially held that the exemption under Article 2(2)(a) GDPR (processing of personal

listed in Article 2(3) of that directive and Article 2(2) of that regulation, apply. 62 In particular, it should be noted that Article 9 of the GDPR and Article

12(5)(1) GDPR apply. However, it leaves open whether the material scope of application of the GDPR is opened or not opened due to Article 2(2)(a) GDPR. In any

principle of Fairness (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR), purpose limitation (Article 5(1)(b) GDPR) and data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) would not prevent the

data is a fundamental right. Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and Article 16(1) of the Treaty on the

website controller qualifies as controller (Article 4(7) GDPR) and Google LLC as processor (Article 4(8) GDPR) for data processing in connection with Google

of the GDPR, 2) existence of damage suffered, and 3) a causal link between that infringement and that damage. The CJEU held that Article 82(1) GDPR must

Protection Ordinance Article 5, paragraph Article 5 (2) 1, letter c and letter f., Article 5, paragraph Article 6 (1) (a) Article 32 (1), (1), (33) 1 and

elements. Infringement of Article 6 and 9 GDPR qualifies for the maximum amount for administrative fines as set out in Article 83(5) GDPR: 20,000,000 € or 4%

the GDPR under Article 2(2)(a) GDPR. Furthermore, the court extensively discussed the material scope of application according to Article 2(1) GDPR. At

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

The Court’s conclusion follows from reading Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy directive in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC, and noting that

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

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

DI-2020-11373 2(23) Date: 2023-06-30 2.2.1 Applicable regulations, etc. ................................................... .....9 2.2.2 The Privacy Protection

Spain the GDPR is developed by the Ley Orgánica 3/2018 de Protección de Datos Personales y garantía de los derechos digitales (LOPDGDD). Article 7.2 LOPDGDD

constitute information relating to that candidate, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46". From the start of its analysis it emphasised that

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

exemption is based on Article 85(2) GDPR. According to Article 26(3) of the 2018 Act, certain GDPR provisions (listed in Article 26(9)) will not apply

artistic or literary purposes, only Article 24, Article 26, Article 28, Article 29, Article 32, and Article 40- Article 43 applies, following § 3. Special

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

the age of consent under GDPR is kept, namely 16 (art. 8.1 GDPR). See Article 7 of the national implementing law. See Article 5 of the national implementing

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,

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

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

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.

...................... .11 2.2.1 Applicable regulations, etc. ................................................ ...11 2.2.2 The Privacy Protection Authority's

..................... .14 2.2.1 Applicable regulations, etc. ................................................... ...14 2.2.2 The Privacy Protection Authority's

reasoned in accordance with Article 4(24) GDPR and, after conducting its own assessment of the factors under Article 83(2) GDPR, found that the proposed fine

and ‘criminal convictions’ within the meaning of Article 8(5) of Directive 95/46 (and Article 10 GDPR). In addition the court judged that a search engine

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

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

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

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

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

compliant with Articles 5 and 6 GDPR. According to Article 6 GDPR, when a controller did not rely on consent (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR), its processing should be

the context of the employment relationship. In application of Article 88 of the GDPR, Article 111 of the Code provides that such data shall be processed in

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

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

judicial remedy against the controller under Article 79(1) GDPR. Having said that, Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR make it clear that national courts must assess

arguing that it wasn’t a controller within the definition set out under Article 2(d) Directive 95/46 and that NRW did not have legal standing to bring a

Therefore, 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

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 invalid

the documents or files containing their personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR and Article 12 of the ePrivacy Directive. However, there is a right to a

section 6 (2) of the Data Protection Act.n as a safeguard in accordance with subsection 2.n as a safeguard in accordance with subsection 2. 15. According

Chapter 2 § 6 in the Instrument of Government. The right to free speech is secured in Chapter 2 § 1 in the Instrument of Government and Chapter 2 § 1 of

Protection Act 2019 sets exceptions in Article 9(1) GDPR, Article 15 GDPR, Article 16 GDPR, Article 18 GDPR and Article 21 GDPR for scientific or historical research

pursued by Meta pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Lastly, the CJEU noted that the fact that Article 6(1)(a) and Article 9(2)(a) GDPR must be interpreted as

Constitution. It therefore went on to say that, Article 57 of the Law, read in combination with Article 60 of the same Law, provide that procedures must

imposed on OpenAI a temporary limitation of processing pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. Such limitation concerns all processing operations involving data

repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter “GDPR”); In view of the law of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection

freedoms, under Article L 521-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice or where it exists serious doubts as the legality of the decision, under Article L 521-1

6(1)(a) GDPR for consent and Article 6(1) GDPR if there was no legal basis at all). If any other EU law was relied on, add the Article and name of the law and

in the Member States. Example: Article 6(1)(a) GDPR Example: Not Art. 6 Abs 1 Lit a GDPR or Article 6 GDPR or GDPR Article 6, Sec 1(a) Recitals are also

to the data. The infringement of Article 32 of the GDPR led to a €10,000 fine (RON 48,748). The infringement of Article 3 of Law 506/2004 led to a fine

the exceptions to the one stop shop mechanism applies (Article 55(2), Article 56(2), or Article 66). It interesting to note that the Court confirms that

provisions of Article 58 (2) (i) of the GDPR, each supervisory authority has, inter alia, the power to impose an administrative fine under Article 83, depending

many waivers from GDPR for research purposes under Article 89 GDPR. It is questionable of the law is constitutional and in line with GDPR. § 151 of the Austrian

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

and (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)

as the obligation of accountability by article.5 par.2 GDPR, i.e. it violated fundamental principles of the GDPR on the protection of personal data. 8.

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

of article 4.19 of the GDPR – (article 13.1. c) of the GDPR) and does not mention the data retention periods personal data processed (article 13.2. a)

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

meaning of Article 22(1) of that regulation.’ Moreover, the Court addressed the relationship between Article 22(2)(b) GDPR and national law. Article 22(2)(b)

2019, BVwerG 6 C 2.18 "It follows that the opening clauses of Article 6.2 and 6.3 GDPR for processing operations under Article 6.1(1)(e) GDPR do not cover

parent's request, thus violating Article 15(1) and (4) GDPR as well as the principle of accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR. The complainant requested

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

decision within the meaning of Article 22(1) and Article 22(2) GDPR - then the opening clause of Article 22(2)(b) GDPR does not apply to national rules

processing of data concerning health laid down in Article 9(1) GDPR is possible under Article 9(2)(h) GDPR) in a case such as the present one, are there further

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 of

previous relationship with her. The HDPA held that according to the GDPR and Article 11 of L. 3471/2006, in electronic political communication a politician

(VWA ./05, see point II.2), the XXXX (VWA ./06, see point II.2) and a certificate of representation (VWA ./07, see point II.2). I.2. As a result, the BA continued

DPA held that a CCTV system shall be handled as subject to Article 4(1) and Article 4(2) of GDPR Regulation. That judgment does not mean that any CCTV surveillance

by the EDPB pursuant to Article 66(2) GDPR. Temporary ban on processing (order) Pursuant to Article 66(1) GDPR and 58(2)(f) GDPR the Norwegian DPA consequently

the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR. Furthermore, the erasure or destruction of personal data is a form of processing based on Article 4(2) GDPR. The DPA has

c), Article 6.1., Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. e) and Article 13.2. a) of the DGPS pursuant to Article 101 of the ICA, to impose

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

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

” Regarding section k) of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with the provisions

regarded as an access request under Article 15(1) GDPR. According to Recital 63 GDPR, the right of access under Article 15 GDPR serves data subjects to be informed

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

life insurance company had breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR as its as its practice was to process

guaranteed human rights. This right is explicitly enshrined in Article 38. In Slovenia the GDPR is not implemented by the national law. Slovenia remains the

provisions Article 4.11: Consent (definition) Article 4.12: Violation of personal data (definition) Article 5.2: Principle of accountability Article 6.1.a:

Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter f, for failure to assess protests, cf. Article 21, and for lack of information, cf. Article 13. 2. Pursuant to Article 58 (2)

breached Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for lack of legal basis, Article 21 for lack of considering an objection, Article 13 for lack of information and Article 24 for

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

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

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

that the letter in question referred to Article 58(1)(a) of the GDPR and Article 5:16 in conjunction with Article 5:17 of the Awb does not make this any

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

which are provided for in Article 32 GDPR and Article 32 of VIS Regulation. Further security requirements are provided for in Article 9 of Council Decision

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

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

and Article 57(1)(a), Article 58(2)(d) and (i) in connection with Article 5(1)(a), (e) and (f) and (2), Article 24(1) and (2), Article 28, Article 30(1)(d)

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

GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, Article 10 GDPR, Article 30 GDPR and Article 34 GDPR, as well as the provision of the PDPA governing processing of personal data

conferred on it by the provisions of Article 58 of the GDPR and Article 15 of Law 4624/2019. 2. As Article 5 of the GDPR defines the processing principles

in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/12 2016/679

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

been 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

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

person.” Article 9.2 of the GDPR however means that: “Section 1 will not apply when one of the following circumstances occurs:” which cover article 9.2.a) to

AEPD fined in €2,000 a website for non-GDPR compliant privacy policy, violating Article 13 GDPR. On January 16, 2022 the data subject complaint against

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

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)

and 35 GDPR. As a result, the DPA imposed an administrative fine of €12,000 on the CNSP and €3,000 on ITSS as joint-controller, under Article 83 GDPR. The

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

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

information in accordance with Art. 15 (1) half-sentence 2 GDPR. According to Art. 4 No. 2 GDPR, processing also includes in particular the collection,

_ga=GA1.2.345900854.1597222413; cookie-agreed=2; __unam=67c8073-173e205d800-f576793-2; TS018cf77a=017ccc203c9e7bc4149f20e42e6a3643881397eb41e025f2c54bb

to or instead of the measures referred to in Article 58(2)(a) to (h) and (j) [..)', Article 83(2) of the GDPR recognizes the power of the national supervisory

rating, breaching Article 6(1) GDPR, and required the company to implement a policy for conducting credit ratings per Article 24 GDPR. A person lodged a

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)

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

regard being had to the powers provided for in Article 51(1) GDPR and those conferred by Article 58(2)(b) and (d) of that regulation? (3) Must the independence

fairness of processing (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR), data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR), and data protection by default (Article 25(2) GDPR). The DPA suggested

informed of this provision. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, as well as to Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of Legislative Decree no. 150 of

relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, in its article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures" establishes that: "2. In accordance with

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

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

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

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

§ 8 clause 2 of the GTC agreed between the parties (according to § 8 b paragraph 2 MB/KK). 52 § 8 b para. 2 MB/KK violates §203 sentence 2 VVG and is therefore

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

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

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

compliance with the principles of Article 5 GDPR and that they could be based on the legal basis of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The BVwG ruled that the principle

considering that it has 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

the Personal Data Act and the Privacy Ordinance, cf. section 2 and Article 2 of the Ordinance 2. The Personal Data Act and the Privacy Ordinance are coming

pertaining to human dignity (Article 2(1) Greek Constitution) and to the right to freely form one's personality (Article 5(1) Greek Constitution). The

controller €80,000: €50,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €30,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. The original fine of €80,000 was reduced

contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD and the article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to the infraction committed by violating the established in article 5.1

provisions of article 83.1 of the GDPR. In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR and article 76 of

infringements of Article 12, 13 and 14 of the GDPR only. A limited assessment which, according to Hungarian and Italian DPAs, was faulty. Article 13(2)(e) GDPR provides

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

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

complained of, by virtue of the powers established in Article 58.2 of the RGPD and in Articles 47, 64.2 and 68.1 of the Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5,

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

infringement of Article 5.1 c) AVG has been proven. f)Transparent information (Article 5.1(a); Article 12.1. and Article 13.1. and 13.2. AVG) 43.The complainant

with article 4.1 of the RGPD, is a personal data. nal and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said regulation. In article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

the GDPR does not apply established by the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 para. 1, 2 para. 1 and 3 para. 2 GDPR

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

the documents or files containing their personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR and Article 12 of the ePrivacy Directive. However, there is a right to a

Supervision: Article 6(1)(f), legitimate interest. For the special category personal data: About diagnosis: Article 6(1)(a), cf. Article 9(2)(a), consent

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

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

persons pursuant to Article 34(1) GDPR. The Danish DPA found that Intervare did not go through with a proper assessment pursuant to Article 34(1), as it had

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

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

company. In this case, it is not the consent referred to in Article 6(1)(a), Article 7 or Article 9(2)(a) of the Data Protection Regulation, but a separate permission

Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens disagrees: Article 78(2) GDPR defines the applicable time frame in line with Article 4:13(1) of the Dutch Administrative law

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

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

Sections 1004 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

pre-existing form of Article 11 of Law 3471/2006). However, with the provisions of article 16 par. 1 and 2 of law 3917/2011, par. 1 and 2 of article 11 of law 3471/2006

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

AEPD found that the Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSC-PSOE) violated Article 21 GDPR due to unsolicited political propaganda sent after the data subject

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

these facts: one for the violation of article 5.1.f) RGPD, and another for article 32 GDPR. x Article 58.2 of the GDPR provides the following: “Each supervisory

Compétence de la Chambre de Résolution des Litiges (Article 2 AVG ; Article 4 WOG) 55. Conformément à l'article 2, paragraphe 1, de l'AVG, le règlement s'applique

regard to article 83.2 (k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with Article 83(2)(k) of

indication of wishes to be regarded as specific and informed?" "(2) For the purposes of Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46, what conditions must be fulfilled in

than those expressly indicated in Article 22(1), with the exception of personal data referred to in Article 10 GDPR. This means that data concerning criminal

provided for in Article 56(1), read in conjunction with Article 56(2), read in conjunction with Article 56(3), read in conjunction with Article 56(4), read

only with regard to the applications under 2 a), 2 b) and 2 c) and partially with regard to the application under 2 d), so that the remainder of the regional

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 of Article 32 GDPR? - Does the fact that this health data is not encrypted constitute a breach of the security obligation under Article 32 GDPR? - Does

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

"accept 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

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

rowspan="2" height="104"><img src="http://www.dpa.gr:80/APDPXPortlets/images/menutop8_2.jpg" width="100%" height="104" border="0"></td><td rowspan="2" width="127"

Iltalehti's article (url search result link 2) is "", which in itself tells about the escape of the applicant who is the subject of the article. The writings

the following: Article 66 GDPR gives the possibility for a procedure of urgency and from this article (and Article 66 and Article 62 GDPR), the European

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

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 sedeagpd.gob.es 2/7 FIFTH: On

Human Rights. According to settled case-law, it follows from Article 1.2 and Article 59.2 of the Basic Law that there is an obligation to use the Human

specified in Article 83 of the GDPR. 92. 92. Firstly, the restricted formation emphasises that, in this case, the criterion provided for in Article 83(2)(a) of

of a link to this information. This was a violation of Article 12. Based on Article 13(2)(a) GDPR and WP29 guidelines on transparency, the CNIL noted that

following the mandatory legal requirements to do so, violating Article 6(1) and Article 13 GDPR. A resident has installed, without the authorization of the

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

European Convention of Human Rights. According to Article 29(2), Article 14 GDPR and Article 15 GDPR apply insofar as the right to freedom of expression

the duty of confidentiality - contained in paragraph e) of paragraph 2 of Article 64, that states that the National Tax Number and home address associated

included within the framework of data protection. Therefore, Article 16 GDPR cannot be applied. Article 16 refers to inaccurate personal data, not to the rectification

IX of the GDPR does not apply to processing that is exclusively for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes, with the exception of Article 28-32, which

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

presenting the principles of data processing of Article 5(1) GDPR, underlined that, based on Article 5(2) GDPR, it is the data processor's responsibility to

provisional file. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/3  When the time for Brexit to take effect, ICO has not made any action on

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

address from my list of recipients, in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 GDPR. 4) He proceeded to remove the recipient’s e-mail address from the list

regulated in article 11 of Law 3471/2006 for the protection of personal data in the field of electronic communications. According to this article, such communication

The Privacy Board's assessment It follows from section 2 of the Personal Data Act and Article 2 (2) of the Privacy Ordinance that the Act and the regulation

decide in BE C-132/21 that the Article 78 GDPR remedy is a cost-free proxy for or alternative to a direct claim under Article 79. The mere fact that it is

the first sentence of recital 63 GDPR. Neither the wording of Article 12(5) GDPR nor that of Article 15(1) and (3) GDPR condition the provision (to access

implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR).As the processing activity does not relate to a period of time during which the GDPR applied and, according to the

comprehensible character, within the meaning of Article 12 of the GDPR, of the information provided for in Article 13 of the Regulation must be assessed. The

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

his access request, provided an incomplete dataset in English. Could Article 15 GDPR be exercised although the personal are expected to be already possessed

personal data by violating the working procedure leads to a violation of the GDPR? The ANSPDCP found that the controller sent (through its processor) to a

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

for the submitting of all the reasons for which no sanction of the GDPR Article 58 par.2(a), (b), (e) & (i) should be imposed on Cyprus Police. Eventually

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

personal data under Article 15 GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the airline company had not complied with the right to access in Article 15 GDPR when it refused

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

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

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

basis in line with Article 13(1)(d) GDPR. The DPA stated that it would impose a fine on the controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, if latter does

12(2), 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

law--> |GDPR_Article_1=Article 12(5) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 12 GDPR#5 |GDPR_Article_2=Article 15 GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 15 GDPR |GDPR_Article_3=Article

law--> |GDPR_Article_1=Article 12(5) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 12 GDPR#5 |GDPR_Article_2=Article 15 GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 15 GDPR |GDPR_Article_3=Article

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

the GDPR, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(b) and (d) respectively. For the violation of Article 5(1)(f), it issued a fine of €10000, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i)

further additional corrective powers exercised in this second decision (IN-19-9-2) in light of how the first decision addressed the circumstances of the same

the controller violated the provisions of Article 13(1)(c) GDPR, Article 13(2)(a) GDPR and Article 13(2)(e) GDPR, according to which a controller is obliged

paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, letter b) of the Regulation; 9, paragraphs 1, 2, 4, of the Regulation, Articles 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3 and 2-septies, paragraph

health, culture, and emotional state. This combined with the fact that Article 4(2) GDPR includes "transmission" and "dissemination" in the definition of processing

of the unlawfully processed data in accordance with Article 58(2)(f) and Article 58(2)(g) GDPR. 2) There is no contradiction in concurrently referring

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

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

content: [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted]

latter of the possibility to exercise their right of access according to Article 15 GDPR, regardless of the fact that the data controller is a public or private

publication of the photos a valid legal basis would be needed according to Article 6 GDPR. Consent would be the only proper legal basis here if it meets all the

the proceedings to a violation of Article 5(2) GDPR. Further proceedings regarding potential other violations of the GDPR were provisionally terminated pursuant

violation committed by the Center of Registers listed in Article 83(2) (b), (c), (e), (f) and (h) GDPR, i. e. the absence of intent, the efforts made to restore

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

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

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 and 3,

of the data subject's right to access their data (Article 15 GDPR) and the violation of Article 11(2) Law 3471/2006 that concerns the protection of personal

game company to bring its processing operations into compliance with Article 12(2) GDPR as it found they should implement additional modalities to facilitate

reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also ordered the controller to bring its

preference to use English, which justifies the data export in English (Article 12(1) GDPR). The bank – the controller- notified its client that his account

databases made available by 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

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

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

mandatory by article 13.2.a) of the GDPR. 2.2 Regarding the exercise of their rights by the persons concerned 67 53. In the context of objective 2, the head

regard to article 83.2 (k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with Article 83(2)(k) of

requirements of Article 9 GDPR. In the DSB held that the processing violated Articles 5, 6 and 9 GDPR: Consent under Articles 6(1)(a), 7 and 9(2)(a) GDPR cannot

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

confidentiality as laid down in Article 5(1)(d) and (f) GDPR read in conjunction with the principle of accountability according to Article 5(2) GDPR. The ANSPDCP imposed

that the action was intentional (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR), and that the personal data are sensitive (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). Share your comments here! Share

to the GDPR, imposed a fine in the amount of € 10.000 and ordered Cavauto srl. to communicate the proposed changes in view of compliance with GDPR. The Italian

rectification under Article 16 GDPR, the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR, and the right to restriction of processing under Article 18 GDPR. The court therefore

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

data. Hence, it considered Article 32(1)(a), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(d) GDPR to be breached. Pursuant to Article 82(2) GDPR, the DPA took several aggravating

reprimand in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR for these established violations. The DPA issued an order, as per Article 15(4)(b) of the Greek Law 4624/2019

initiated by the above Registry, (1) and (2) and Article 13.II.The Authority instructs the Obliged Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (d) of the General Data Protection

comply with GDPR Article 12 (1) and GDPR Article 5 (2) of the provisions of paragraph 2, and he did not even mention the Data Subject 2. Based on GDPR Article

basis of the processing operation (Article 14(1)(c) GDPR) and the recipients of the personal data (Article 14(1) and (2) GDPR). As such, Datatilsynet found

Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) fined leasing company €15,000 for violation of Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR after investigating a data breach reported by the company, where

specifically cites Article 56(2) GDPR, the Greek DPA is competent to investigte this complaint pursuant to Article 55 GDPR. Article 56 applies where there

number). However, the DPA concluded that the controller did not violate Article 15(2) GDPR by asking for more information to identify the data subject when the

make a profit, which is a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The processing must also be necessary for this purpose. The controller

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

the infringement - Article 83(2)(b) - and the fact that the infringement involved the “basic identifiers” of the claimant - Article 83(2)(g) - to be aggravating

CPDP issued NRA an order under Article 58(2)(d) supra Article 57(1)(a) and Article 83(2)(a), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the GDPR for undertaking suitable technical

positively to the request of the Complainant in accordance with Article 12(2) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. The HDPA imposed an administrative fine of EUR 20,000 on

and mitigate its effects (article 83.2.f, of the RGPD) -Basic personal identifiers (name, surname, address, D.N.I.) (article 83.2 g). Therefore, in accordance

Protection Regulation (Article 83 (2) (e) of the General Data Protection Regulation). circumstances within the meaning of Article 2 (2) (b), (f), (g), (h)

commercial messages. Consequently, pursuant to its powers under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to take technical and organizational

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, §

status, without appropriate legal grounds, as required by art. 6 GDPR and art 2-ter and 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code, and going against the principles

within a specified period - Article 58. 2 d)-. In accordance with Article 83(2) of the RGPD, the measure provided for in Article 58(2)(d) of that Regulation

intervention Article 58 (2) (i) and Article 83 (2) state that the IMY has the power to impose administrative penalty fees in accordance with Article 83. the

(2) of the Regulation. 1 does not apply. Article 9 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation Article 2 (2) (h) states that the prohibition on the processing

took place. Therefore, as per Article 58 (2) (b), DPA issued a reprimand to the controller as per and, as per Article 58 (2) (d), ordered the controller

limitation under Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. 1(b) and the obligation (principle) of accountability under Article 5(1)(b). 2 of the GDPR, that is to say

PCR (SARS_CoV-2) test is 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

Finnish DPA found a retail chain to have breached Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR for its lengthy storage of purchase behaviour

Finnish DPA found a healthcare provider to have breached Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR for not implementing appropriate technical and organisational

reasoned in accordance with Article 4(24) GDPR and, after conducting its own assessment of the factors under Article 83(2) GDPR, found that the proposed fine

processor €30,000 under Article 58(2) GDPR and Article 83(4) GDPR for the breach of Article 32(2), Article 32(4) GDPR and Article 28(3) GDPR. As for the controller

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

by Article 83.2 of the RGPD, and with the provisions of Article 76 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to paragraph k) of the aforementioned Article 83.2 RGPD

to whom the personal data was disclosed pursuant to article 17 paragraph 2 and article 19, [...]". 2.2 According to the Guidelines 5/2020 of the ESPD regarding

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

enshrined in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The Finish DPA further ordered the controller to bring its processing activities into compliance under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR

Company itself, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation, Article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code and Article 18 of Law no. 689/1981

impose a data protection fine on Client 2. In this context, the Authority will comply with Article 83 (2) of the GDPR and Infotv. 75 / A. § considered by the

accordance with Article 32 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. First 3.2. Article 32 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation 2 Article 32 (2) of the Regulation

considered appropriate in accordance with Article 31(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to identify

respecting the time limits as set out to in Article 12(5) of the GDPR and Article 35(2) of the Dutch GDPR Implementation Act? According to the court, the

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

the principle of confidentiality, namely Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, and thus, it did not comply with Article 5(2) GDPR referred as the principle of "proactive

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

reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also ordered the controller to erase the

regard to Article 83 (2) (k) of the GDPR, Article 76 of the GDPR, ‘Sanctions and remedial measures’, provides: ‘2. In accordance with Article 83 (2) (k) of

art. 58, paragraph 5, of the Code. 2, of the Regulations, concerning the alleged violations of the 2-ter, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, of the Code and of Art. 6

protection. /Article 6.1 c) Ju in combination with Article 6.3 of the GDPR. b) Violation of Articles 5.1.a}, 12.1, 13.lc}, 13.2.a}, 13.2.d}, and 13.2.e}, for

11, 148, 150, and Article 5, Chapter IV and Article 83. 4 2.8 Chapter IV, Section 2 addresses security of personal data. Article 32 GDPR provides: 1. Taking

data 9 2.1.1 Factual findings 9 2.1.2Legal assessment 9 2.2 Controller and processor(s) 10 2.2.1 Factual findings 10 2.2.2Legal assessment 12 2.3Security

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

for in Article 83, paragraph 5, of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation itself and Article 166, paragraph

defendant 2. Also here is there 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)

requirement in Article 13 (1) of the Data Protection Ordinance. Article 12 (2) (b) in conjunction with the requirement of Article 12 (2) of the Regulation

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

context of Articles 40 and 41 GDPR, in particular from Article 40 Paragraph 4 in conjunction with Article 41 Paragraph 2 lit. c) GDPR, namely further that a monitoring

effect on someone'. No exception to prohibition For the use of fingerprints, 2 exceptions to the prohibition could be possible in this case: if explicit consent

violation of Article 5(1)(d) of the GPRS, in relation to Article 4(1) of the LOPDGDD, which governs the principle of accuracy of personal data. IV Article 72.1

statement of the Debtor [Article 83 (2) (k) GDPR]; - the processing did not affect specific categories of personal data [Article 83 (2) GDPR paragraph (g)]; -

correct processing [...]" (Article 6(1)(c) and (e)). 2, RGPD), with the consequence that the provision contained in Article 19, paragraph 3, of the Code

the GDPR. Would judge otherwiseindeed contradict :o the wording of Article L2.2 in conjunction with Article 2.f) of the ePrivacy Directive,o Article 8 of

criteria stated in Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in accordance with Article 83(2) GDPR and Article 76 LOPDGDD the following

subsequent violations of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and of the principle of accountability as foreseen in Article 5(2) GDPR read in conjunction

subjects, according to Article 33(1) GDPR and Article 34(1) GDPR? The PUODO held that the insurance company infringed the GDPR provisions, failing to notify

could not be considered appropriate in accordance with Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR regarding the online appointment booking system. As a result

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

in Article 12(5) GDPR, Article 15(4) GDPR or Article 16 of the Norwegian Personal Data Act were applicable. The DPA ordered the controller (Article 58(2)(d)

with Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Thus, the Danish DPA held that the processing was also not following the principles of Article 5(1)

reply. The AKI reminded the defendant of its obligation under Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR to inform the data subject in a concise, clear, comprehensible

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

contemplated in Article 83 (2) GDPR, in this case, the aggravating circumstances for being a non-intentional but significant negligent action (Article 83 (2) (b)

Procedure (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 256) and Article 7(1) and (2), Article 60, Article 101, Article 103 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Data

a violation of Article 12(3) in relation to Article 15 GDPR. The Garante hence applied an administrative fine as per Article 83(5) GDPR. The amount of

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

evidenced by the following text: "Pursuant to Article 9 and 10 and pursuant to § 362 (2), § 339 (2), § 361 (1) (6) and (2) of the CCP and § Page 5 5 (7) 341 (3)

with Article 12 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 6 and Article 5 (2). 1 (c). The Data Inspectorate has hereby emphasized that Article 12 (2) of the

this regard [GDPR Article 14 (2) b) ]. (iv) The prospectus did not provide any information regarding data subject rights [GDPR Article 14 (2) c)]. In the

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

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

Protection Act may also be based on violations of the GDPR, despite the lack of implementation of Article 80(2) GDPR in Austria. Matching customer data with a data

of Article 12(1) GDPR. The AP outlined that, in the event of an infringement of Article 12(1) of the GDPR, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(5)

adopt corrective measures as per Article 58(2) GDPR, and that, although there was a violation of Articles 5(1)(a) and (e) GDPR, “the circumstances referred

unlawfully. 2.4 Administrative fine Pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, preamble, in conjunction with Article 83, paragraph 4, of the GDPR and article 14, third

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

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 and

necessary to interpret Article 80(2) GDPR, as it relates most closely to the facts of the case. The CJEU held that Article 80(2) GDPR gives the Member States

representation does not replace Article 9 (2) (a) and (c) consent of the data subject in accordance with Article 7. Article 7 (1) of the ECHR provides that

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

violation of Article 5 GDPR, Article 6(1) GDPR and Article 9 GDPR. Article 5 GDPR establishes the principles of data processing. Firstly, Article 5(1)(a) GDPR

the requirements of Article 32 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 and Article 5 (1). 2, cf. Article 32 (1) (f), cf. 1 and 2. It is clear, among other

Romanian DPA found a violation of Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(2) and Article 32(4) of the GDPR and fined SC Medicover SRL €2,000. Share your comments here

fined € 11.000 Fan Courrier Express SRL for violations of f Article 32 paragraphs (1) and (2) GDPR. The controller Fan Courrier Express SRL was sanctioned

according to ***URL.2 - gads, expiring on November 2, 2021 and for advertising purposes according to ***URL.2 - _ga, expiring on 2 November 2021 and for

it was not possible to rely on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Secondly, the DPA recalled that, according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, processing of personal data on

processor, see Article 28(3)(a) GDPR. Document that all transfers of personal data to insecure third countries, are in line with the GDPR. Describe all

No. 1, No. 2, Art. 6 para. 1 sentence 1 lit. c, para. 3 sentence 1, Art. 86 GKG § 47 (1), § 52 (2), § 53 (2) no. 2, § 63 (3) sentence 1 no. 2, § 66 (3)

competent to decide, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(2) in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

violation of Articles 14(2)(f), 17(1)(c) and 21(1) GDPR, on the following grounds. Firstly, the DPA found a violation of Article 14(2)(f) GDPR, as the controller

data is a form of processing as referred to in the GDPR (article 4 sub 2 GDPR). Article 6 of the GDPR provides that the processing of personal data is only

that a valid legal basis would be either Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, or Article 6(1)(d) GDPR or Article 9(2)(b) GDPR. The Data protection authority (the UOOU)

with Article 6 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 17 (1) (c) and that the information shall not be deleted in accordance with Article 17 (1)