Search results

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)

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

as referred to in Article 22(1) GDPR. For further details on the definition of automated decision-making see Article 22 GDPR and Article 4. In short, automated

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

application, see Article 3(2)(b) GDPR, or automated decision making, see Article 22 GDPR. Profiling also triggers information duties under Articles 13(2)(f) and

categories. Similar to the ex-ante information in Article 13(2)(b) and 14(2)(c) GDPR, Article 15(1)(e) GDPR required to inform the data subject about the right

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

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

issued its Guidelines 2/2019 on the processing of personal data under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR with a detailed analysis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. General information

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

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

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

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

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

commentary on Article 13(2)(b) GDPR. Given the identical wording, see commentary on Article 13(2)(c) GDPR. Given the identical wording, see commentary on Article

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

(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)

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

subject to processing, as described in Article 3(2)(a) and (b) GDPR. Common Misunderstanding: The application of the GDPR does in no way depend on the citizenship

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

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

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

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

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

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

liability 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

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

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

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

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

on Article 36(4), it is still disputed whether the outcome of the procedure rather resembles that of Article 58(3)(a) GDPR or Article 58(3)(b) GDPR. See

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary. Article 54(1)(b) GDPR echoes Article 53(2) GDPR, which outlines the qualificatory and experiential requirements for SA members. However, unlike Article

pursuant to Article 40(7) GDPR. These DPAs will then confirm whether they are “supervisory authorities concerned” (see Article 4(22)(a)(b) GDPR). Finally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

conjunction with § 307 para. 1 sentence 2 BGB. The plaintiff bases claim 1.c. on § 2 para. 1, para. 2 p. 1 no. 11 b) UKlaG in conjunction with. § 25 para

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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 of

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

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

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

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

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

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.

the OCE informs that on 2 April 2019 the mandatory copy of the Electoral Census had been delivered to its representative, Mr. B.B.B, for the purposes provided

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

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

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

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

of personal data of clients or third parties (article 83.2.k, of the GDPR in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD). The Judgment of the National

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

300 euros (THREE HUNDRED euros). SECOND: ORDER D. B.B.B. that, pursuant to article 58.2 d) of the GDPR, in the Within ten business days, take the following

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

within the meaning of Art. 83(2)(b) GDPR. 69 In the opinion of the Senate, the review and deletion periods under section II.2.b) of the Rules of Conduct regarding

§ 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

II.2) at. I.4. At the request of the bB of January 22, 2021 (VWA ./25, see point II.2), the BF1 in the Follow an opinion (VWA ./26, see point II.2). In

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

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

***EMAIL.1 and the tenants are Mr. B.B.B. and Ms. C.C.C., with an e-mail address for notification purposes ***EMAIL.2 FOURTH: On 07/02/19, the Subdirectorate

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

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

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

standardized in Articles 12-22 through the opening clause in Article 23 GDPR. Restrictions on the right to information under Art. 15 GDPR result in particular

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

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

of 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

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

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

compliance and accountability with the principles of Article 5(1) and par.2 in conjunction with Article 6(1) GDPR. B. imposes on NEW YORK COLLEGE S.A. the effective

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

..............69 B.2.2. - Determining the purposes ofthe processingofpersonal datawithin the TCF...............................71 B.2.3. - Determiningthe

Decision 22-02-2021 Authority: AZOP (Croatia) Jurisdiction: Croatia Relevant Law: Article 32(1)(b) GDPR Article 32(1)(d) GDPR Article 32(2) GDPR Article 32(4)

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

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

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

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

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

third parties (article 83.2.k, of the C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 10/11 RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

section 2, letter b), of this article. The The implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in re article 93,

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

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

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

A.A.A., herein the data controller, violated Article 6 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR, as well as Article 22.2 LSSI (Spanish national law). The data subject

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

service in the terms required by article 22.2.”, and may be sanctioned with a fine of up to €30,000, in accordance with article 39 of the aforementioned LSSI

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

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

contrary to the legal provisions established in article 22.2 LSSI. This Infraction is classified as "minor" in Article 38.4 g) of the aforementioned Law, and may

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

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

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

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.

Policy on their website (Article 13 GDPR) and for the absence of a reject button on the second layer of their Cookie Policy (Article 22(2) LSSI). The claimant

provisions of Article 5.1 of the AVG, but concerns the entire AVG. 31. The aforementioned follows from the merger of Article 5.2 of the AVG and Article 24.1 of

data Article 9.2.a: Explicit consent Article 9.2.b: Execution of labor law obligations etc. Article 9.2.c: Protection of vital interests Article 9.2.d: Edit

resolution to Mr. A.A.A., on behalf of Ms. B.B.B. and to KUTXABANK, S.A.. In accordance with the provisions of Article 50 of the LOPDGDD, this Resolution will

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

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

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

this year, it made, in summary, the following allegations: a) “D. B.B.B. On January 22, 2019, he signed a Contract for the Assignment of Rights to Image

infringement of article 13) of the RGPD, regarding its Privacy Policy. b- 3,000 euros (three thousand euros), for the infringement of article 22.2) of the LSSI

accordance with the provisions of article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.” IV By virtue of the provisions of article 58.2 of the RGPD, the Spanish Agency

COUNCIL OF EDUCATION, *** IES B.B.B .. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to Ms. A.A.A. and to the COUNCIL OF EDUCATION, *** IES B.B.B .. In accordance with the

ADDRESS B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 13 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5.b) of the GDPR, a warning. SECOND: TO ORDER B.B.B., with

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

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

Protection Agency san- tion to D. B.B.B.. with NIF ***NIF.1, owner of the website ***URL.1, for an infringement tion of Article 22.2 of the LSSI regarding the

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) — amongst others, the Spanish law regulating cookies — and Article 13 of

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

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

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

Infotv. Pursuant to Section 60 (2): “For the initiation of data protection authority proceedings Article 77 (1) and Article 22 (b) of the General Data Protection

their privacy policy in line with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR within a month. The AEPD also held that URLs 1-4 breached Article 22(2) of the Law 34/2002 (LSSI), the

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

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

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

the lack of a privacy and cookie policy on a website infringe Article 13 GDPR and Article 22(2) LSSI? The AEPD decided to impose a fine to the clinic: € 2000

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

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

data subject (Article 26 GDPR). The processing by the processor must, in accordance with the provisions of article 28 paragraph 3 of the GDPR, be governed

that, in cases of video surveillance, Article 22.4 LOPDGDD provides that the duty of disclosure in Article 12 GDPR may be fulfilled by placing a sign near

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

under section 2, second paragraph, letter b, meaning that the DPA did not have any authority on the process, pursuant to Article 55 GDPR and section 20

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

regards to a violation of Article 7 GDPR, for gathering consent in a generic way. To fine the controller €3000 for infringing Article 22(2) LSSI, for installing

sedeagpd.gob.es 12/22 The Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency is competent to settle this complaint in accordance with Article 12.2, sections i) and

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) —this is the Spanish law regulating cookies, connected to Article 13 of the

have ordered me. 2º- On January 2, 2021, I proceed to sue the company […], whose legal representatives or administrators are A.A.A. and B.B.B .. The reason

of processing (Article 32 GDPR), the transparency principle (Article 13 GDPR) and its information duties related to cookies (Article 22(2) of the Spanish

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

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

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

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) —this is the Spanish law regulating cookies, connected to Article 13 of the

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

investigation regarding the violation of Article 15(1)(b) and (c). In accordance with Article 58(2) and Article 83(2), the DPA fined Company A €1,500. Since

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

the complaint (Article 83 (2) (f) GDPR), not linking the activity of the offender to the processing of personal data (Article 76 (2) (b) LOPDGD), the non-existence

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

meaning of Article 4 No. 7 GDPR. However, the defendant cannot be accused of violating an obligation to provide information under Art. 15, 12 GDPR. Paragraph

imposition of measures, according to article 58.2 d) of the GDPR. Along with it and In accordance with article 58.2 of the GDPR, it was also indicated that the

other means. 2. The data controller shall facilitate the exercise of his rights under Articles 15 to 22. In the cases referred to in Article 11(2), the person

under this Article. Article 11 (2) In the cases referred to in paragraphs 15 to 22, the controller shall exercise their rights under Article may not refuse

which also refers to Article 34 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 3 (b). The Data Inspectorate should note that Article 34 (2) does. 3, points to the

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

ONLINE S.L. with NIF B87298923, in accordance with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified

alleged 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

of measures, according to the aforementioned article 58.2 d) of the RGPD. c).- Violation of article 22.2 of the LSSI, due to the deficiencies detected

TODOTECNICOS24H S.L. with NIF B86558533, in accordance with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified

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

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) —this is the Spanish law regulating cookies, connected to Article 13 GDPR

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

GDPR and Article 66.2 WOG); and • compliance with the transparency obligations (Article 12 GDPR) and the te provide information (Article 13 GDPR). Page

the commission of the infraction of article 22.2 of the LSSI. This offense is classified as "slight" in article 38.4 g), of the aforementioned Law, which

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

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

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

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

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

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

2000 and the Personal Data Regulations 2000 applied. Regulations §§ 2-6, 2-11, 2-13 and 2-14 regulated such matters as the case concerns. The relevant conditions

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

otherwise treated; b) the interested party withdraws the consent on which the treatment of in accordance with Article 6 (1) point (a) or Article 9 (2) point a)

has engaged another real estate agent for the sale. 2 Process flow First instance 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 PME summoned [plaintiff] on May 9, 2018 (see also

processed; b) the data subject withdraws the consent on the basis of which the processing was carried out in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a)

conversation and the phone number -E.E.E.-Can you prove that you are B.B.B. , answer Well look for B.B.B. that I am I. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid

specified period - article 58. 2 d) -. According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the measure provided for in article 58.2 d) of the aforementioned

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

trained in GDPR matters. With GDPR in force for over a year, the controller should have had at least measures in place concerning the Articles 15-22 GDPR and

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

service in the terms required by article 22.2. ", and may be sanctioned with a fine of up to € 30,000, in accordance with article 39 of the aforementioned LSSI

standard B-VG Art 130 Paragraph 2a B-VG Art 133 Paragraph 4 B-VG Art87 Paragraph 2 BVwGG §24a BVwGG §3 GDPR Art55 Paragraph 3 GOG §84 GOG §85 B-VG Art.

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

sanction that should be imposed is warning, in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR, in connection with the above-mentioned Recital 148. Therefore

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

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

infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of theRGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with article 58.2.b) of theRGPD.SECOND: REQUEST

Resolution regarding the right to access (art. 15 GDPR) and its formalities art. 12(2) GDPR. The Health service of the Balearic Islands (Controller) didn’t

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 bodies (the

patient data cf. Article 32 GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and inadequate internal controls cf. Article 24 GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. Østfold Hospital

receive information on the outcome of the complaint under Article 77(2) GDPR and Article 57(1)(f) GDPR. The case was therefore returned to the DPA for an assessment

policies regulating this, they failed to comply to Article 24(1) and (2) GDPR and Article 25(1) and (2) GDPR. No fine was imposed, but a reprimand and clear

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

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

(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

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

event of a violation of the precepts of the RGPD. Article 58.2 of the GDPR provides the following: “2 Each supervisory authority will have all of the following

(hereinafter, “the person claimed ”), by virtue of the complaint presented by B.B.B., (hereinafter,“ the claimant ”), and based on the following, BACKGROUND

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

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

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

into account and issued a fine of €2,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR as classified under Article 83(5) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share

material scope of application of the AVG (Article 2.1. AVG). None of the 4 grounds for exception under article 2.2. AVG apply here. As the Defendant does

COM) with NIF B87043691 is exempt from liability which could constitute a breach of Article 13 of the GPRS, a breach of Article 83.5 (b) of the GPRS SECOND:

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

specified period - article 58. 2 d) -. According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the measure provided for in article 58.2 d) of the aforementioned

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

transmissions covered by point b. of her applications, "by analogy pursuant to Article 25.1 in conjunction with Article 22.4 of the first case DSG". Arguments

violation of Article 15 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, as well as for the alleged infringement of Article 17 of the GDPR, typified in

"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

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

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:

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

ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376, paragraph 4.2.2, of 28 May 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:793, paragraph 2.4.5, and of 19 July 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, paragraph 2.13.2). 33. The Section

data subject’s consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, which in turn meets the conditions for consent laid out in Article 7 GDPR. The AEPD highlighted that this

the number of data subjects (Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the As for the number of data subjects (Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Panel notes that these

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

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

access and deletion enshrined in Articles 15 to 22 of the RGPD, Articles 13 to 18 LOPDGDD and Article 17 GDPR respectively. The conflict of law arose in this

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

controller) under Article 33 GDPR. On the 7 December 2023, the Norwegian DPA imposed a reprimand on the municipality under Article 58(2)(b) GDPR, for processing

of APERCIBIMENTO to B.B.B., for the alleged violation of article 5.1.a) of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5.a) and 58.2.b) and d) of the aforementioned

conjunction with Article 62 (1) 4 DSG and for the period prior to 25 May 2018 against Article 52 Paragraph 2 no. 7 in conjunction with § 50b par. 2 DSG 2000.

interests of employees (Article 83 (2) (a) and (k) of the General Data Protection Regulation). The Authority did not consider Article 83 (2) (b), (c), (d), (f)

accordance with Article 60 of the AVG. No objections to this were submitted. 2. Legal Framework 2.1 Scope of the AVG Pursuant to Article 2(1) of the AVG

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

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

defendant and the processing of personal data (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD) The activity of the defendant

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

[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

significant (article 83.2 b). - The duration of the illegitimate treatment of the data of the affected party carried out by the claimed (article 83.2 d). That

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

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

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

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

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

highly sensitive personal data exposed, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2), cf. Article 24. An employee in a municipal health care center

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

to B.B.B.. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 10/11 THIRD: ORDER to B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, which by virtue of article 58.2

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

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

( *** POSITION 1) for an infraction of Article 6.1.f) of the GDPR, in accordance with Article 83.5 of the GDPR ”. In the face of it, no allegations have

claimant 1), Ms. B.B.B. (hereafter claimant 2) and D. C.C.C. (hereinafter claimant 3) dated October 24, 2019, November 13, 2019, and July 22, 2020, respectively

pursuant to Article 6(1)(e) of the GDPR and § 1(2) of the Act of Statistics Denmark and is not obliged to delete it in accordance with the Article 17(3)(b) of

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)

means. 2. The data controller shall facilitate the exercise of his rights under Articles 15 to 22. In the cases referred to in Article 11 paragraph 2, the

AEPD pursuant to Article 72(1)(m). The AEPD does not specify the provision of Article 21 on which it bases its decision. Article 21 GDPR states that the

obligor.[Article 83(2)(b) GDPR] - The obligor has not yet been convicted for violating the General Data Protection Regulation.[Article 83(2)(e) GDPR] - The

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

a violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Generally, a controller

considered a violation pursuant to Article 72(1)(m) of the LOPDGDD, which would be sanctioned according to Article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share

for which they were collected pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 1, b) of the GDPR 22. Article 5.1.b) of the GDPR provides that “Personal data must be: / (…)

analyzes the criteria set 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

authority. Under Article 60 GDPR, the following DPAs were identified as “concerned supervisory authorities” under Article 4(22) GDPR: the Netherlands,

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

street. 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

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

recording is "processing" of "personal data" within the meaning of Article 4(1) and 4(2) GDPR. Therefore, the data subject has the right to request access to

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

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

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

data Article 9.2.a: Express consent Article 9.2.b: Fulfillment of labor law obligations, etc. Article 9.2.c: Protection of vital interests Article 9.2.d:

to the right of access under Article 15(4) of the GDPR or section 22 of the DDPA can be invoked. It follows from Article 15 (4), that the right to obtain

3 Sentence 2 GDPR is in accordance and whether there is a conflict of interest within the meaning of. Article 38 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 GDPR applies if

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

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

RESOLVES: FIRST: TO IMPOSE on B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a penalty

decision stated: - Pursuant to Article 100, §1, 9 WOG, to order processing in accordance with with Articles 5.1.f, 5.2, 24 and 32 GDPR, in which in particular

complaining party. On Consequently, dated January 22, 2021, for the purposes provided in its article 64.2 of the LOPDGDD, the Director of the Spanish Agency

specified in Section 2 (2), it may apply the legal consequences specified in the General Data Protection Decree. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) of the General

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

(CNIL) on 22 May 2023 regarding the FamEmp survey, as on the basis of Article 44(6) of French law no. 78-17 of 6 January 1978 and Article 36 GDPR, any data

otherwise processed. (b) the data subject withdraws the consent on which the processing was based pursuant to Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) and there is

data subject (art / e83.2.c of the GDPR} d) Any violation committed by the controller or processor (article 83.2.e of the GDPR} e) The degree of cooperation

Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter f for this processing. Our legal basis for decisions on reprimands is the Privacy Ordinance, Article 58, No. 2, letter b. ».

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

violated the GDPR and the consent given through such a banner cannot be considered a valid consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 4(11) GDPR. Further

The DPA first requested an overview of such processing (equivalent to Article 30 GDPR) for purposes related to the Norwegian Execution of Sentences Act, details

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

means. 2. The data controller shall facilitate the exercise of his rights under Articles 15 to 22. In the cases referred to in Article 11 paragraph 2, the

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

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, the

verweerder op 22 mei 2020. 5. Op 25 maart 2020 meldt de verweerder aan de Geschillenkamer een kopie van stuk 2 van het dossier (art. 95, §2, 3° WOG) te wensen

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

violated the provisions of this Regulation" (Article 58.2.b)) and to "impose a fine under Article 83" (Article 58.2.b)).The Commission will be able to impose

□□□ 03026497-0014-0025- □2- □1- � L_JCourt of Appeal Brussels -2022/AR/549 p. 15 2. Ground 2: The Impugned Decision is Properly B. As regards the amount

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

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

personal data", circumstance provided for in article 76.2.b) LOPDGDD in connection with article 83.2.k) GDPR. The business activity of the defendant necessarily

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

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

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

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

ORDER B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, in accordance with article 58.2.d) of the GDPR, for a violation of article 13 of the GDPR typified in article 83.5.b) of

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

for the alleged violation of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD in relation to article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD. FIFTH: The Agreement

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

processing of sensitive personal data under Article 9 GDPR and their lack of valid consent to do so under Article 6(1) GDPR. In 2020, the Norwegian Consumer Council

otherwise treated; b) the interested party withdraws the consent on which the treatment is based in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) and this

down in Article 83 (2) GDPR: As aggravating factors: • In this case, negligent action is not intentional, but it is significant (Article 83 (¬2) (b)). • There

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

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

established by article 83.2 of the RGPD:As aggravating the following:We are facing unintentional, but significant negligent action(article 83.2 b)Basic personal

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

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

the lack of security routines, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) cf. Article 5 GDPR, Article 35 and Article 24(1), respectively. Teachers at two junior high

as established in article 5 of the GDPR. The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. III The GDPR defines personal

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

A., and B.B.B., with the aim of capturing and recording the acts of a sexual nature, carried out on the "complainant", described in section "B" of the

third parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD) The continued nature of the infraction (article 83.2.k of the RGPD

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

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

cf. Article 4 no. 2. The search engine provider is responsible for the processing of personal data that takes place in that connection, cf. Article 4 no

subject's rights, such as the right to object according to Article 21 GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to ensure that data

are established in Article 58.2 of the RGPD.2(b), the power to impose an administrative fine under Article 83 of the GDPR - Article 58(2)(i), or the power

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

and with Article 21(5) of the GDPR, and with Article 21(2)(a) of the GDPR. 1(b) of Law No. 2472/1997, in conjunction with Article 13 par. 4 of Law No. 3471/2006

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 €2,000 (two thousand

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

municipality €409,768 (NOK 4,000,000) for breaches of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR after a serious ransomware attack led to highly

out in Article 6 (1) of the GDPR In addition, there is a circumstance within the meaning of Article 9 (2) of the GDPR. (45) Article 9 (2) of the GDPR does

es 2/7 FOUNDATIONS OF LAW FIRST: The Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in

which the person responsible is subject. In contrast to Article 6 (1) (b) GDPR, Article 6 (1) (c) GDPR with “legal obligation” does not mean a contractual

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

negligent action (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR), and for being data known as basic personal identifiers such as name and address (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The AEPD set

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

express answer for any rights exercised under Articles 15 to 22 GDPR, by virtue of Article 12 GDPR. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the GDPR; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In

Violation of article 24.2 of the Constitution, presumption of innocence. First, it invokes Articles 24.2, 103.1 and 2 of the EC, and Article 6 of the Convention

relation to Article 83.2(k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, "Sanctions and remedial measures", provides that "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

also be subject to the provisions of Article 6.1(e) DSGVO in conjunction with Article 6.1(b) DSGVO. Article 2, 28.2 no. 2 BayDSG without the consent of the

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

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

other legal basis for processing under Article 6 GDPR, the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR. Taking into account the low income

concluded that the controller had breached Article 39(1)(b) GDPR. Regarding the breach of Article 38(2) GDPR, the CNPD found that controller had failed

ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376, paragraph 4.2.2, of 28 May 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:793, paragraph 2.4.5, and of 19 July 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, paragraph 2.13.2). 40. The Section

conduct object of the This claim is undeniable (article 76.2.b) of the LOPDGDD in relation to the article 83.2.k). - Although it cannot be argued that the

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

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

(2016/679) Article 5 (1) (a), Article 12 (1), (2) and (6) , Article 13, Article 15 (1) (h), (3) and (4), Article 58 (2) (c) and (d) subparagraphs Article 34 (1)

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

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

accordance with Article 33 GDPR to the Belgian DPA. Nonetheless, there were suspicions that the controller did not comply with Article 32 GDPR. Especially

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.

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

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

one of the 'other administrative or non-judicial' remedies, which Article 78(2) GDPR refers to. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 2 2/6THIRD: On October 30, 2019, in accordance with article 65.4 ofOrganic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on 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

infringement of Article 32.1 of the GDPR typified as a serious infringement in Article 73 f) of the LOPDGDD and in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. For its part

P3002000B, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with article 77.2 of the

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

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

files, of estate [estate 2] , [estate 1] , [address 1] , [name of house] ( [address 2] at [place B] ) and the pasture at [place B] and the accompanying guidance

13. See Opinion of OE article 29, 2/2017, p. 18. 13See. Opinion of OE article 29, 2/2017, p. 28. 14 See. Opinion of OE article 29, 2/2017, pp. 28-29. 12

specified period - article 58. 2 d) -. According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the measure provided for in article 58.2 d) of the aforementioned

Services (STS) Version 2.2 (draft) with separate risk table 7.2 (“Draft DPIA 07.08.23 V2.2”) Satellite Tracking Services (STS) Version 2.3 (draft) with separate

(2) (f) and Article 14 (2) (g), Article 14 (1) andArticle 15 (1) (h) and Article 21 (1)infringement of Article 18 (1) (a) and (d).order the restriction

The Swedish DPA held that a controller has violated article 12(3) GDPR, because, although they complied with an erasure request, they did not subsequently

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

of the judgment article 6, d) and article 6, e) of the GBA law, but this should be read as article 6.1. d) and Article 6.1. e) of the GDPR. Decision on the

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

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

private and professional spheres, to be applicable (see Article 2 and Article 41, paragraph 2, Cost). Niemietz c. Allemagne, 16.12.1992 (Rec. no. 13710/88)

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

have the data processed; (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a), the existence of the right to withdraw consent at any time

accordance with Article 4(1) GDPR, according to the DPA. The Court of Appeal of Brussels held that, in accordance with Article 16 GDPR, the data subject

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

and Article 60 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1781) and pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) in connection

images to Instagram are: A.A.A., born 07/25/2005. B.B.B., born on 05/02/2006 C.C.C., born 11/19/2005 2. That, according to the Judicial Police, the video

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

with Article 2 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation the general data protection regulation applies to data processing. According to Article 4 (1)

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

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

to Article 83(2)(k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, "Penalties and corrective measures", states that: "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

board of 4 companies, 2 of which are active economic activity, 2 have been left to disappear (incl. VAT payers… / there Page 2 2 (4) characterize me /…

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, §

(f), 9 and 32(1)(b) GDPR.” Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i), the DPA hence imposed an administrative fine as per Article 83(4) and (5) GDPR. Given that the

basis of Article 58, paragraph 2, point b) GDPR and Article 100, §1, 5 ° WOG to be reprimanded for the infringement of Article 25 (1) GDPR; b. on the basis

signifies cativa (article 83.2 b).  Basic personal identifiers are affected, (name, surname, two, domicile) (according to article 83.2g). Therefore, based

according to article 5 par. 1 a) and f) GDPR. B. It imposes, on ALFA BANK S.A., as controller, based on article 58 par. 2 sec. i) of the GDPR, an administrative

personal data, even without references to names. Moreover, (2) it included health data (Article 4(15) GDPR) as the newsletters were send to patients of the respected

negligence of the offense (article 83.2 b). - Basic personal identifiers (name, data) are affected banks, the line identifier) ​​(article 83.2 g). That is why it

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. c of

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

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

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

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

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

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, in relation to article 5 of the LOPDGDD, as indicated in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. The telematic

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

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

a, 13.1.c, 13.2.d, 13.2.a and 13.2.e between 15 June and 2 December 2020 as regards departures. (b) infringements that took place from 2 December 2020

Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/55 of the LOPDGDD, as indicated in article 83.5 of the RGPD, and article 58.2.b)of the RGPD . "No allegations were received regarding

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

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

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

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

data breaches from more than twenty Danish banks in accordance with Article 33 GDPR. The reported data breaches concern the accidental disclosure of personal

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

within the meaning of Article 4(15) GDPR and Article 9(1) GDPR. Processing of sensitive data requires a legal basis under Article 9(2) GDPR. In the present case

Protection RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE Ms. B.B.B., with NIF *** NIF.2, for a violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction

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

companies Menzis and VGZ € 50.000 for insufficient security measures under Article 32 GDPR. Translated summary by the AP (The Netherlands): In 2018, the Authority

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

significant negligent action (article 83.2 b).  Basic personal identifiers are affected, according to the article 83.2g). Therefore, in accordance with

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

the public interest, per Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and was also necessary for scientific research purposes under Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Thirdly, that the data

accordance with article 15 AVG (section 2.1) - data processing officer (section 2.2) - cookie policy (section 2.3) - health data processing (section 2.4) - camera

for the claim to be struck out under 3.4(2)(a) and (b) CPR or, alternatively, to grant summary judgement under 24.2 CPR since “it did not process the data

violations provided for by articles 162, paragraph 2-bis, 162, paragraph 2-ter, and 164-bis, paragraph 2, of the Code regarding the protection of personal

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

RETAIL S.L. for alleged infringement of Article 5.1 f) of the GDPR, in accordance with Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR- Initiate sanctioning procedure against

processing involved special categories of data under Article 9 GDPR and whether an exception under Article 9(2) applied; • targeted advertising by the controller

proceedings. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to A.A.A. and B.B.B. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, this Re- The solution will be made

regulation as established in thearticle 2.2 of the RGPD and article 2.2.a) of the LOPDGDD. It says to article 2.2 of the RGPD:"2. This Regulation does not apply

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

authority, are established in article 58.2 of the RGPD. In- Among them are the power to sanction with warning -article 58.2 b) -, the power to impose an administrative

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

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

as indicated in article 25.2 of the RGPD. In this sense, it is meant that the indeterminacy referred to in the article 25.2 of the GDPR refers to the default

allegations of D. B.B.B. exceed the jurisdiction of the Board, being able to go to court. The complaining party states that D. B.B.B. cannot access the

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

claimed, by thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of theRGPD.FIFTH: On 06/22/20, this Agency received a written allegations

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

interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The data subject was heard on this statement and filed a submission, arguing that Article 6(1)(f) GDPR does not apply

out by the school). Article 9 GDPR, for having processed biometric data without any valid ground from Article 9(2). Article 13 GDPR, for not having informed

Infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR on the principle of integrity and confidentiality. 22 6.2.2 Infringement of Article 5(2) GDPR on the principle of accountability

submits that Article 77 AVG 2, interpreted in the light of Articles 1, 51(1) and 57 AVG, recitals 7, 10 and 141 AVG, Article 8 Charter and Article 16 TFEU,

subject has exercised their right to object under Article 21 GDPR. In the same way, Article 48(1)(b) of the Spanish General Telecommunications Act grants

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

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

there is no explicit consent by the customers as requested under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and an implied consent cannot fulfill the provision’s requirement

(1)-(3), Article 83 (5)(e) in connection with Article 31, Article 58 (1)(e), Article 58 (2)(i) of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the

applies to the present case art. 22, paragraph 13, of Legislative Decree 101/2018 (see note of 17 May 2019, cit., Pp. 1-2); b) "the assimilation of the case

dossier werden toegevoegd. 2. Motivering 2.1. De bevoegdheid van de Inspectiedienst en de Geschillenkamer en de omvang van het dossier 2.1.1. Het verzoek van

account the provisions of Article 7:671b (8) opening words and under (b) of the Dutch Civil Code (old), on the basis of Article 7:671b (1) opening words and

negligent action (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) and that basic identifiers such as name, surname, and address are affected (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR), including also

complainant, Article 83(2)(h) GDPR - The existence of a prior complaint. Aggravating factors in accordance with Article 72(2)(a) & (b) LOPDGDD and Article 83(2)(k)

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

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:

Debtor pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation because its data processing activities violated Article 5 (1) (d) of the

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 claimant

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

provided for in Article 18 GDPR. As explained by the Court, Article 18(1) GDPR, in particular in paragraph (d), is linked to Article 21(1) GDPR, which guarantees

therefore orders a discontinuation of proceedings pursuant to Article 100, §1, 2° WOG. Article 5.2 and 31 AVG 37. The report of the Inspectorate shows several

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