Search results

the conditions the GDPR prescribes. The court agreed that Article 23(1)(i) GDPR places a limitation on the scope of Article 15 GDPR. Consequently the right

third parties who reported them, because of the right to privacy per Article 23(1)(i) GDPR of these third parties. The controller is the managing board of the

personal data. Last, the controller generally referred to Article 13(4), Article 14(5) and Article 23 GDPR for possible non-disclosure. The data subject found

legislative measure that serves one of the objectives listed in Article 23, namely Article 23(1)(i) GDPR. After all, the Court of first instance notes, “compliance

it deemed the restrictions on the right of access (Article 15 GDPR]) according to Article 23(1)(h) GDPR legitimate after a reasonable balancing of the public

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

Articles 4(11), 6(1)(a), 7 and 8 GDPR. For the definition of 'consent', see the more commentary under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 7 GDPR. For the definition

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

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

obligations and rights resulting from Article 15 (3) sentence 1 in conjunction with Article 12 (5) GDPR under Article 23 (1) (i) GDPR Consider a national rule which

(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)

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

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

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

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

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

the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 16 (available here) referring to Article 1(1)(b) Directive (EU) 2015/1535

cases (Article 4(23) GDPR), several supervisory authorities (SA) could be competent according to Article 55 GDPR. For this reason, Article 56(1) GDPR establishes

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

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

access under Article 15(1)(h) GDPR applies to all kinds of profiling rather than only to automated decision making under Article 22(1) and (4) GDPR. The DPA

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

prevention (Article 23(1)(a-j) GDPR) allow for far fewer GDPR restrictions than those granted by freedom of expression. Article 85(2) GDPR poses one condition

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

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

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

proceedings under Article 79(1) GDPR where no subjective rights under the GDPR are concerned. For example, a data subject cannot use Article 79(1) GDPR to bring

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

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

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

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

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

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

As such, Article 8 GDPR stipulates additional requirements for consent by children. Article 8 GDPR applies only if the processing of data (i) relies on

agreement on joint responsibility as required under Article 26(1) of the GDPR. Article 33(1) GDPR outlines that controllers (as defined above) have an

complaint under Article 77(1) GDPR on behalf of the data subject and to represent the them before all supervisory authorities (“SA”) (Article 4(21) GDPR). Secondly

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

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

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

the establishment of SAs are set out in Article 51(1) and 52 GDPR, Article 54(1)(a) GDPR repeats that these should be legislated for through a Member State's

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

bound by the GDPR in its entirety. For the derogation of Article 91 GDPR to become relevant, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) first, the

framework of voluntary cooperation provided for in Article 62(1) GDPR is partly supplemented by Article 62(2) GDPR, which contains several cases in which joint

other DPAs concerned. The BCR Lead the submits, following Article 64(1) GDPR and Article 64(4) GDPR, a draft decision to the EDPB. The EDPB, in turn, issues

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

non-material damage. Article 32(1) GDPR reflects the principle of integrity and confidentiality enshrined in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The controller and the

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

under Article 13 should not be too long. Article 12 GDPR may be limited by Union or national Law in accordance with Article 23 GDPR. Article 12(1) GDPR

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

basis of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR (i.e. processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject) or Article 6(1)(e) GDPR

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

the SAs' tasks, please refer to Article 57 GDPR and for their powers please refer to Article 58 GDPR. See Recital 122 GDPR. In this respect, reference should

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

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

all sanctions mentioned in Chapter VIII GDPR, i.e. the damages under Article 82 GDPR and fines under Article 83 GDPR. In any case, should fines for conduct

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

binding decision under Article 66 GDPR, at the request of the Hamburg SA which adopted provisional measures under Article 66(1) GDPR, based on its consideration

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

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

from 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

subjects - which would be counterproductive. Article 11 GDPR is meant to address this matter. Under Article 11(1) GDPR, when a processing operation does not or

specific rules. Article 82 GDPR introduces a right to compensation for damage caused as a result of an infringement of the GDPR. Article 82(1) contains the

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

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

within the meaning of Article 72(1) GDPR. The GDPR does not contain detailed content requirements for the RoP. Article 74(2) GDPR only stipulates that the

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

surveillance cameras, it was therefore in breach of Article 37(1)(b) GDPR by not having a DPO. Article 37(1) GDPR specifies three conditions in which the designation

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

deadline of Article 36(1) GDPR, and it is still disputed whether the outcome of the procedure rather resembles that of Article 58(3)(a) GDPR or Article 58(3)(b)

up. Indeed, the wording of Article 40(1) establishes that they “shall encourage” this (emphasis added). Article 40(1) GDPR clarifies that codes of conduct

mentioned in Article 26(1), but also encompasses other obligations of controllers under the GDPR. EDPB: This extends to various obligations under the GDPR, including

self-determination: 1. In the context of modern data processing, the general right of personality under Article 2.1 in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the Basic

identifier) pursuant to Article 4(1) of the GDPR. c) Combination with other elements The fulfillment of Article 4(1) of the GDPR becomes even more apparent

citizens and the full exercise of their rights". This article is found in Section I of Chapter II of Title I of the Constitution, which confers reinforced constitutional

million) kroner for violation of Article 44 of the data protection regulation. 1 Description of the supervisory matter 1.1 The processing The Swedish Privacy

personal data in that assessment pursuant to Article 15(1) GDPR. However, Article 23(1)(i) GDPR and Article 41 UAVG provide the possibility of a restriction

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

connection with the violation of article/and 5.1. c); 6.1.; 13.1. (c);13.1(e) and13.2(a)AVG: r PAGE 01-00001582885-0002-0033-01- □1-� r L _JCourt of Appeal Brussels

processing by the defendant can only be Article 6 (1) sentence 1 lit e) DSGVO (see b) or Article 6 (1) sentence 1 lit f) DSGVO (see c), the requirements

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

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

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

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

analogous to Article 18 (1)(a) GDPR the Court held that § 12 of the German Registration Law explicitly exludes the application of Article 18 (1)(a) GDPR. According

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.

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

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 processing of personal data of Article 23(1) of Regulation 2018/1725, the EDPS recalled that, under Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725, processing

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

***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 RGPD, a fine of €1,500 (€1

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

conformity with Article 5.1. 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

processing of personal data (Article 5(1) of the GDPR), must, in accordance with Article 12(1) of the GDPR. 1 of the GDPR, must take appropriate measures

application 1.b., from §§ 1, 3 para. 1 no. 1, 4 UKlag in conjunction with §§ 307 para. 1, para. 2 no.1 in conjunction with Art. 5 para. 1 lit. a), Art

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)

in the same article 83. 111. Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20, paragraph III, of the Data Protection Act, provides: 1. Each supervisory

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

enshrined in Article 25 GDPR. Additionally, the AEPD concluded that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, noting that although the GDPR does not

their processing, according to with article 21 par. 1 of the GDPR, which is based on article 6 par. 1 item or GDPR. In his reply dated 24-05-2022, the

of 27 June 2017, Satakunnan M a r k k i n a p ö r s s i O y k a i S a t a m e d i a O y k a t a F i n l a n d i a s § 165). Also, in the same recent decision

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

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

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 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

established in the articles 15 to 22 of the GDPR, regulated in article 64.1 of the LOPDGDD, according to the which: "1. When the procedure refers exclusively

transmission in accordance with Art. 44 GDPR. I. Procedure: I.1. With a submission dated August 18, 2020, the BF1 lodged a complaint against the BF2 and

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

compliance with the principles of Article 5 (1) GDPR. 4. As, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 (c) (d).1 GDPR is personal data “any information

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

with Art. 2 para. 1, Art. 1 para. 1 GG, Art. 17 para. 1 lit. d) DSGVO, because her personal data is stored according to Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f. DSGVO had

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

of articles 38.1, 38.3, 39.1 a) and 39.1 b) of the GDPR; - to issue an injunction against Company A to comply with Article 38.1 of the GDPR, within four

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

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,

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

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

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

been destroyed. The individual complained before the DPA revoking Article 15(1) and (3) GDPR and the DPA to order the delivering of the requested information

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

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

comply with section 5.1(b) of the MDR, and for failure to comply with section 5.1(a) of the MDR. and 5.1(b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the MDR

Art. 82 Para. 1, Para. 2, Art. 5 Para. 1 lit. a Var. 1, Article 6 paragraph 1 subparagraph. 1 lit. 1, Article 6 paragraph 1 subparagraph. 1 lit. a, Art.

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

processing, even if this is not expressly mentioned in Art. 15 (1) GDPR. - Art. 15 para. 1 lit. b GDPR The general information on the data categories processed

ascertained, that pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code and Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Regulation of the Guarantor no. 1/2019, this measure should

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

(f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and

meaning that no violation of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR could be established. Integrity and confidentiality - Article 5(1)(f) GDPR As explained above, the DPA

IMPOSE Ms. B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of the Article 5.1.c) and 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) and b) of the RGPD, a fine

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)

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

is based on Article 9(2)(i) of the GDPR as mentioned above. 34. However, certain data referred to in the PIA are not mentioned in Article 2 of the draft

§ 166 para. 1 p. 1 ZPO § 114 para. 1 p. 1, § 121 para. 1 StVZO § 31a paragraph 1 p. 1, paragraph 3 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 Art. 5 para. 1 lit. d, Art

From a legal point of view, it follows that D.1 The legal situation: D.1.1. infringement of Article 1(1) of the DSG 2000: A decision on this part of the

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

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

the Strijp-S housing complex in Eindhoven. It's agreed 1 Facts 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 that [plaintiff] directly to PME Investment Services

indictment. Reasons for the decision I. - C o i p rim i q u a ttro m o tive, with n n e ssi, the vvo ca tu re applicant denounces: (i) om it exam and the decisive

they had to be revoked. 1. the warning issued in respect of Camera 1 (point 1 of the decision of 23 November 2018) is lawful Camera 1 films the area where

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

registered on the Robinson List in breach of Article 48(1)(b) LGT and Article 21 GDPR in conjunction with Article 23(4) LOPDGDD. Avilon Center SL made an voluntary

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

obligation according to Article 25(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, because the controller had failed to implement Article 5(1)(a) of the General

contrary to the plaintiff's view - does not follow from Art. 82 (1) GDPR. Art. 82 (1) GDPR would probably be directly applicable in national law. The defendant

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

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

under 1] signed with [estate 1] states in article 13 that [brother of appellant under 1] any change to the must pass on ownership. On May 22, 2006, I became

Administrative Court. 3. Legal Assessment 3.1. To dismiss the complaint 3.1.1. In accordance with Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the data subject has the right to request

conditions laid down in Article 6(1), - processing as described above, and in particular one of the conditions laid down in Article 6(1). 1 AVG. It should be

Applicable provisions Article 5.1.a: Principle of legality, objectivity and transparency Article 5.1.b: Principle of limitation of purpose Article 5.2: Principle

Manifestation of the general right of personality, Article 2 Paragraph 1 GG in conjunction with Article 1 Paragraph 1 GG, or from Section 823 Paragraph 2 BGB in

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

the 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

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

legitimate basis a violation of GDPR? The Spanish DPA considered that the processing of personal data was in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR, as the worker had processed

infringed Articles 6.1 (a) and 5.1 (a) of the GDPR, in breach of Articles (a) and (a) of the GDPR¬, in accordance with Article 71 (1) (a) and (b) respectively

images, in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) found that the defendant's conduct violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as a broader principle

requirements of Art. 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Letter e GDPR and the requirements of Article 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Letter f GDPR do not apply in favor of the

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. Each supervisory authority

Survey". Justification . Pursuant to Article 78 paragraph 1, Article 79 paragraph 1 point 1 and Article 84 paragraph 1 point 1-4 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on

Section 34 (1) in conjunction with. § Section 29 (1) and (2) of the BDSG are based on the opening clause of Article 23 (1) (i) of the GDPR, according to

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

with the principle of fair and transparent processing contained in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? Is the information relating to personal data processing operations

processor, Vamavi Phone SL, had violated Article 48(1) LGT, Article 21 GDPR in link with Article 23 LOPDGDD and Article 28 GDPR by making a commercial call on behalf

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

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

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

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

held that the controller violated Article 12(1) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR, Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 15(3) GDPR. The controller had deleted the data

to injunctive relief from § 29 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 2 BDSG old version, but from § 29 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 1 BDSG old version, although the "basic

subjects required by Article 12.2. of the GDPR. 8.1.3. As for the breach of the principle of minimization (article 5.1 c) of the GDPR) 8.1.3.1. In view of the

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notification of the aforementioned start-up

Raise Marketing violated the data subject's right to object (Article 21 GDPR and Article 23 LOPDGDD). The DPA fined Raise Marketing €1500 for this violation

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

It follows from Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, that data controllers and data processors, taking into account i.a. the nature, scope

section 1, subsection 1, section 14, subsections 1–2, section 15, subsections 1 and 3. and subsection 4, 3 points, section 16, subsection 1, section 18

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

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

authorities in the article 57.1 and of the powers granted in article 58.1 of the GDPR, and of in accordance with the provisions of Title VII, Chapter I, Second Section

the exceptional circumstances of Article 23 (1) e GDPR in conjunction with Sections 32c (1) No. 1, 32b (1) sentence 1 No 1 a, sentence 2, § 32 paragraph 2

data under the GDPR. The Italian DPA started an investigation concerning potential violations of Articles 5(1)(a), 6, 13, 28(1) and 35 GDPR. The Italian

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

on April 1, 2017 in the amount of €39.96, 14 Tariff B... increase on April 1, 2020 in the amount of €74.26, 15Tarif T... increase on April 1, 2017 in the

appeal is admissible; however, it is not justified. Legal assessment 1.1 Paragraph 1328a(1) of the ABGB states Anyone who unlawfully and culpably encroaches

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

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

the authority initiated proceedings for the alleged infringement of Article 5(1)(d) GDPR against the political party aforementioned. The Political party acknowledged

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

have entered into a breacha / 'article 14.1-2 combined' article 12.3, article 6, article 5.1, c) and articles 5.2 and 24.1-2 of the RGPO. It is therefore

medical consultant pursuant to Article 15 GDPR? The Datatilsynet held that the insurance company did act in line with Article 15 GDPR. The DPA did not consider

[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

which led to a (sensitive) data breach, in violation of Article 32(1) and Article 32(2) GDPR In Oktober 2019, a malicious third party gained unauthorized

services (hereinafter LSSI), in accordance with article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of 1 October, on the Common Administrative Procedure

S.A.U. with NIF A-65559296, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www

Section 4 (1) of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Federal Law Gazette I No. 165/1999 as amended; Article 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

violation of article 6.1. RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a), and article 31, in relation to article 58.1.e), both of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.e) of

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

messages. Is this a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR? The AEPD held that this behaviour was a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and fined Vodafone €100,000

fines of €50,000 on IBERDROLA CLIENTES, SAU for infringement of Article 5(1) GDPR and 17 GDPR respectively. A former IBERDROLA client complained to the Spanish

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

lawfulness: (1) the 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

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

This behaviour was in violation of Article 31 GDPR. Thirdly, Company B was found to be in violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. This provision imposes an obligation

employer is lawful under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR (i.e. necessary for the performance of the employment contract) or Article 6(1)(c) GDPR (i.e. if there is a legal

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

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

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72.1 m), under the rubric “Infractions considered very grave ”provides: "1. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.5 of Regulation

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

(definition) Article 5.1 : Principles of data processing Article 5.1.a : Principle of legality, objectivity and transparency Article 5.1.b : Principle

pursuant to Article 17.1 GDPR , and that the data controller subsequently confirmed the deletion of her account, as required by Article 12(3) and (4) 1 1. The

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

engines (see Annex 1 to note of 9 January 2019, p. 1); b) to be "aware of the dispersion of data on 12.12.2018" (see note of 9 January 2019, p. 1) and to have

in Section I.3.2. Then the agency sent s.d. letter to the Science Ethics Committee and requested the explanations listed in section I.3.1.3.1.Replies of

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 the LSSI. SEVENTH:

requests for information according to Article 15(1) GDPR. The ‘Business secrecy’ exception only applied to Article 15(4) GDPR, where a data subject would request

arguments for the following reasons: 1) Article 78(2) GDPR defines the applicable time frame in line with Article 4:13(1) of the Dutch Administrative law.

organization (definition) Article 5.1: Data processing principles Article 5.1.a: Principle of legality, objectivity and transparency Article 5.1. b: Principle of

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

consent of the respective data subject, therefore infringing Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. On 23 October 2019, a complaint was lodged before a court relating to

organisation contravene Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? The AEPD found that the disclosure of her personal data to the 400 members violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD stressed

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

functions assigned to the control authorities in article 57.1 and the powers granted in the article 58.1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection

//<![CDATA[(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]|| function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o)

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public

constitutes personal data according with Article 4(1) GDPR therefore its processing falls within the scope of GDPR. The DPA also analysed whether the controller

A80907397, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 1. APPOINT Mr. D.D.D. as instructor. and

the DPA provides: - (1) This section applies where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section 165 or Article 77 of the GDPR, the Commissioner (a)

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

publication of the judgment breach the GDPR? The AEPD held that the respondent’s actions violated the GDPR Article 5(1)(a) requirement that processing must

Google's request to overturn the Swedish DPA's decision on the company's Article 17 violations. However, the court reduced the fine imposed by the DPA from

basis for the processing (Article 21(1) GDPR). Finally, the DPA fined the controller €12,000 for a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR due to the lack of a valid

functions assigned to the control authorities in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection

functions assigned to the control authorities in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es

infringed Article 7 of the GDPR and Article 6(3) of the Spanish Law on Data Protection and Digital Rights Guarantee (LOPDGDD), according to which, (i) commercial

measures that would have implemented as required by Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) For its part, Article 72(1)(i) of the LOPDGDD considers a very serious infringement

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

time, which is a violation of the GDPR. As to the claim for damages, the CoS notes that though Article 82(1) of the GDPR states that full compensation for

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

Sentence 1, Section 102 Paragraph 1 BetrVG, Section 17 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 KSchG) on the consultation (e.g. Section 90 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1, Section

data 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

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

resolution, i.e. "of the nullity or invalidity of all acts dealt with in the files E/004416/2018 and PS/00452/2019, pursuant to Article 47(1) and 48.1 of Law

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72, under the heading "Infractions considered very serious ”provides: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation

provided in article 5.1.f) and 32.1 of the GDPR (LCEur 2016, 605). It should be noted that the GDPR, without prejudice to the provisions of its article 83, contemplates

of articles 83.1 and 83.2 of the RGPD must be observed. In turn, pursuant to article 83. 2.k GDPR, the circumstances described in article 76 LOPDGDD may

the social and health authority of a city to have breached Article 6(1) GDPR and Article 10 GDPR by requesting data subjects to provide it with personal data

having knowledge of the following: 1.1 In general, marketing actions can be classified attending to several criteria. 1.1.1. Campaigns managed directly by

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

according to Article 13? of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, cf. 1. tölul. Paragraph 1 Article 8 Act no. 90/2018 and item a of the first paragraph. Article 5 of the

ensure the protection of the interests referred to in Article 23(1). objectives referred to in Article 23(1), the controller shall take into account when assessing

Ministry of Tourism violated Article 33 GDPR by failing to report the aforementioned data breach, and Article 37(1) GDPR by not appointing a DPO (at the

within the meaning of point 2. Article 3 Act no. 90/2018, 1. tölul. Article 4 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and point 1. Article 2 Act no. 75/2019. On the other

paragraph of Article 87 of the Data Protection Act, Article I of Title III of the Act provides: this Title shall apply without prejudice to Title I er , data

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

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

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

Regulation, hereinafter: GDPR), ABl. No. L 119 of 4.5.2016 p. 1; §§ 1 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2, 18 Paragraph 1 and 24 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 5 of the

4 line 16, Art. 12 para. 1, Art. 14 para. 1 to para. 5, Art. 15, Art. 51 para. 1, Art. 57 para. 1 lit. f and Art. 77 para. 1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

hereinafter "the defendant". Decision on the merits 145/2023 - 2/15 I. Facts and procedure I.1. Facts 1. The subject matter of the complaint concerns the sending

Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the first stipulation and section 2.2 of the second stipulation of the aforementioned contract state "FIRST.- OBJECT: 1.1 The purpose

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

- the rectification of the violation of Article 13 GDPR would also rectify the violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR (principle of transparency) and therefore

point (e) of Article 6(1) of the GDPR. 48 If a data subject has objected to the data processing, it follows from Article 21(1) of the GDPR that compelling

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

according to To 1): € 1.200,00 To 2): € 300,00 To 3): € 300,00 . . . In total: € 1.800 To 1): 3 days To 2): 1 day To 3): 1 day ... In total: 5 days Ad 1): Art.

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

damages were not fully presented. Article 82 GDPR presupposes damage. The asserted mere breach of the provisions of the GDPR is not sufficient for a claim

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

OF RIBADEDEVA ( *** 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

with the requirements of Article 13.1 and Article 13.1 and 2 of the GDPR (right to information) as regards the data subjects, i.e. employees and employees

application of the requirements set out in Article 82 of the Data Protection Act is set out in Article 3, paragraph I, of the same Act, which states: "without

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

for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On January 23, 2023, DIGI requests a copy of the

offered and / or concluded after July 1, 2016, articles L.211-1, L.212-3, L.212-1, L.241-1, R.212-1 / 1 °, L .111-1, L.111-2, L.111-3, L.221-5, L.221-6,

practice. Recital 1: The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right. Article 8(1) of the Charter

articles 5.1.,b) juncto 24.1 and 9.2.a) juncto 7.3 of the RGPD; - that it is not necessary to pronounce one of the measures provided for in Article 100, §1 of

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

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

accordance with Article 56 paragraph 1 of the Regulation. 23. Applying the cooperation and consistency mechanism provided for in Chapter VII of the GDPR, the CNIL

recorded such acts and uploaded the video to Instagram had infringed Article 6(1) GDPR, for processing personal data without a legitimate basis (namely without

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

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

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

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public

conferred by article 79(2) of the GDPR. This is the relevant provision for the purposes of para 3.1(20) of CPR Practice Direction 3B. Article 79(2) provides:

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

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

of Articles 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 6.1.c), 6.3, 9.2.i), 12.1, 13.1.c), 13.2.a), 13.2.d), 13.2.e), 30.1.a) and 30.1.d), 35.1 and 35.7 of the GDPR 9. The applicant

there is no violation of articles 5.1(c), 5.1(d), 5.1(e) and 5.1(f). Articles 5.1(c), (d) and (f), 5.2, 12, 16, 24, 25, 30.1, 31, 32, 38.3 and 38.6 of the AVG

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

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

thealleged infringement of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPDand considered very serious in 72.1.a), for the purposes of prescription

request under Article 21 GDPR can be made at any time and several times. It also found that a provisional measure can be granted under Article 21 GDPR if an urgent

in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter GDPR), and C/

referred to in Article 64(1) or does not follow the opinion of the Committee issued under Article 64". 8. The investigation shows that, on 1 June 2018, the

LEGAL GROUNDS I By virtue of the powers conferred on each individual by Article 58(2) of the GPRS, the authority, and in accordance with Article 47 of Organic

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

According to Article 72.1 LOPDGDD, the violation of data processing principles under Article 5 GDPR was considered very serious. Considering Article 25(1) GDPR

referred to as the ISESA), as provided for in Article 43.1 of the said Act. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October 1995 on the Common Administrative Procedure

in Annex 1 in category I, category II or category III. In Annex 1, Article 33(1) of the AVG is classified as category III. Pursuant to Article 2 (2.3),

*** URL.1 , a penalty of 3,000 euros (three thousand euros), for in-fraction of article 22.2) of the LSSI Law, typified as “slight” in article 38.4.g)of

specific enough and did not comply with Article 13 GDPR. Does the lack of precision enough to infrige Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD found that the information

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

and GDPR? Is a prediction of a political affiliation a "special category of data" under Article 9(1) GDPR? How much are the damages under Article 82 GDPR

rely on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR in the context of its offering of the Instagram Terms of Use, and to include an infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR” (Para 137)

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

for fraud prevention under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Did the company’s policy breach Article 6 or any other articles of the GDPR? The Garante held that the

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

of article Article 24.1, and in relation to the obligations referred to in the previous section, The information obligation provided for in Article 5 of

according to Article 8, Article 23. and paragraph 1 Article 25 Act no. 90/2018, cf. Article 5, paragraph 1 Article 24 and paragraph 1 Article 28 of regulation

(Article 57, 1., a) GDPR), and the performance of all other related tasks with the protection of personal data (Article 57, 1., v) GDPR). 10 49. In that respect

(hereinafter: the GDPR) applies on 25 May 2018 become. The GDPR imposes the same obligation in Article 32, paragraph 1, as it applied under Article 13 6. The UWV

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

Agency's decision 3.1. Authorization to record telephone conversations 3.1.1. Pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, there is in principle

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

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

subject pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, for a theft of their personal identity and financial data, because it violated Article 32(1) GDPR which led to a data

its part, art. 58.2.i) of the RGPD provides: "2. Each control authority will have all the following corrective powers listed below: 1. impose an administrative

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

with NIF G08564379, an infringement of article 5.1.b) GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 GDPR, in relation to Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of 5000 euros

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

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

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

03/31/2020, a written letter is sent to the respondent, *** ADDRESS.1, *** LOCALITY.1 (*** PROVINCE.1), address of the Mer- cantil, giving result "Returned to Origin

60 of the GDPR does not apply the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 para. 1, 2 para. 1 and 3 para. 2 GDPR and 13 para

Fees. Act (hereinafter: Act I ) 45 / A. § (1). From the advance payment of the fee, the Itv. Section 59 (1) and Section 62 (1) (h) shall release the party

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

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

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

to privacy, namely, personal data that are protected by Article 9(1) and 9(2)(f) of the GDPR (i.e. union dues, insurance and alimony payments and absences

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

controller) about €352,555 (NOK 4,000,000) for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR after a serious ransomware attack led to highly

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

the other grounds from Article 6(1) of the GDPR do not apply. For example, according to [applicant], Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR does not apply because

83(4)(a) GDPR in conjunction with [Article 32(1) GDPR. Article 32 (1) GDPRby failing, at least with gross negligence, to ensure processes for sufficient authentication

violation of article 6.1. f) of the RGPD, in relation with article 20.1 c) of the LOPDGDD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the cited GDPR That by writing

principles to the GDPR;&#13; &#13; (b) The effect (if any) of the remaining claims – Article 5(1)(f) GDPR (the data security principle), the Article 8 claim and

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

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

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

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

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

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

(see “1.2.4- As regards the complaint according to which the defendant hadless time than the complainant to prepare his arguments ”).1.1.1. Place1.1.1.1.-

and Article 57(1)(a), Article 83(1)-(2) and Article 83(6) in connection with Article 58(2)(e) and (i) of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of

5- □ 1-i; -J L ..J Brussels-2020 Court of Appeal / AR / 1333 p. 3 breach of articles 5.1.a} and 5.1.b), 6.1, 25.1 and 25.2, 32.1 and 32.4 of the GDPR read

means of processing the personal data. The DPA found a breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR since the personal data of the data subject were disclosed to a third

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

pursuant to Article 54 of ZVOP-1, points (a), (d) and (f) of Article 58 (2) of the General Regulation, Articles 29 and 32 of the ZIN and Article 221 ZUP,

violation of the general right of personality under Article 1.1, Article 2.1 of the Basic Law (Article 7, Article 8 of the Basic Law) was to be taken into account

challenge 1/23/2020 The contested administrative act or operation Procedure of the Data Protection Inspectorate 22.01.2020 Decision No 2.1-1 / 19/4627

action under article 100, § 1, 1° of the st LCA, since no violation of the GDPR can be found in this regard. In accordance with article 108, § 1 of the LCA

data protection officer pursuant to Article 37(1)(a) of the GDPR 13. In law, Article 37, paragraph 1, a) of the GDPR provides that “The controller and the

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

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

"Principles of Data Protection", article 4.1 of the LOPDGDD determines: "4. Data accuracy. 1. In accordance with article 5.1.d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

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

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

Agency. The reasons on which the complaint is based are "I am sending you this complaint because I have asked the National Institute of Statistics (INE) to

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

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:

IMPORTANT TO ME. In this privacy statement I explain what personal data I collect from my users and how I use it. I encourage you to read these terms carefully

violation of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1) GDPR - The lack of information on the identity of the controller and the DPO amounts to a violation of Article 13(1)(a) and

accordance with Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the GDPR by not observing the principles in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the GDPR. The complaint in question

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

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

Motifs 3.1 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,

consent [Article 6(1)(a)], due to the nature of the employer-employee relationship.' 3. Rationale 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 According to Articles 4(1) and 4(2)

his compliance with the principles of article 5 par. 1 of the GDPR. 5. Furthermore, Article 6 para. 1 of the GDPR provides, among other things, that the

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

2016 p. 1; § 1 paragraph 1 and 2, § 18 paragraph 1 and § 24 paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of the Data Protection Act (DSG), Federal Law Gazette I No. 165/1999

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 1, cannot suffice

established in Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR. Therefore, the Belgian DPA found the controller to have breached Article 15 GDPR in conjunction with Article 12(3) and

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

health data, recorded in copies Article 6 (1) of the GDPR and, in the case of health data, Article 9 of the GDPR. Article 1 (1); (3) did not provide clear

6, Subsection 1, Clauses 1, 2 and 7 of the Data Protection Act, Article 9, Clause 1 of the Data Protection Regulation does not apply: 1) information obtained

found that the right to a copy under Article 15(3) GDPR is independent from the right to access under Article 15(1) GDPR and is to be construed extensively

lawfulness, fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, and the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR. Additionally, the HDPA held that the

respondent for the alleged breach of Article 5 (1) (f) of the GDPR, as set out in Article 83 (5) of the GDPR. FOURTH:On 23 January 2020, the abovementioned

typified in article 83.4 of the RGPD and is qualified as serious in article 73.1 g) of the LOPDPGDD for prescription purposes.III Article 58.Article 58.2 of

data integrity, security and confidentiality under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. For the violation of Article 32, the AEPD issued the law firm with a reprimand

correspond would be for the infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, the sanction that would correspond would be

the infringement of the data minimisation principle specified at Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

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

DPO as per Article 37 GDPR and 34(1) LOPDGDD, as well as in relation to the need of registering such appointment at the AEPD website [Article 34(3) LOPDGDD]

website: ***URL.1. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/20 FOURTH: On 02/17/23, this Agency accessed the website ***URL.1, verifying

challenged decision of the Federal Court of Justice (Article 2.1 in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the Basic Law). I. 41 The assessment standard of the constitutional

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

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

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 € 5,000 (Five

the meaning of Article 100 of the WOG. The Disputes Chamber has thus decided, on the basis of Article 58.2.c) GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of the WOG,

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

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

artikel 100, §1, 2° WOG de buitenvervolgingstelling bevelen, of de klacht seponeren overeenkomstig artikel 95, §1, 1° of artikel 100, §1, 1° WOG (naargelang

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

infringement in the context of Article 82(1) of the GDPR. cc) The answer to the legal question of how Article 82 (1) of the GDPR is to be interpreted against

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

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)

itself, that the information and measures mentioned in Article 33(1)(b) to Article 33(1)(d) GDPR must also be communicated to the data subject. However

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

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

that publishing the article on its website qualified as processing carried out for journalistic purposes under Article 85 GDPR and § 9(1) of the Austrian

according to Article 15 GDPR, which has been directly applicable since May 25, 2018 (Article 99 (2) GDPR). According to Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the person

breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR ("integrity and confidentiality"). Therefore, the Spanish DPA held that there was an infringement of the GDPR. It imposed

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

violation of article 5 par. 1 a' of the GDPR and the sanctioning of the administrative fine based on article 58 par. 2 subsection i of the GDPR is appropriate

Para. 1 GDPR, which pursuant to Art. 57 Para. 1 lit. q GDPR in conjunction with Section 2 (2) of the ÜStAkk-V can be submitted to this. On point 1 (partial

subjects to Under the conditions set out in Article 15 (1) and (3) of the GDPR, thereby infringing the GDPR Article 25 (1). III.3.2. Designed to handle requests

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

sanction Vodafone in accordance with Article 83(5)(e) GDPR, for the non-compliance with an order pursuant to Article 58(1) GDPR. For this infringement, the AEPD

for the infringement of the confidentiality principle specified at Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €30,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. According to the national legislation (Article 76(2)(b) LOPDGDDon

the alleged violation of article 21 of theLSSI, classified as minor infractions according to article 39.1.c) of said textlegal.1. APPOINT RRR as an instructor

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

typified in Article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers such as: 'failure to provide access in breach of Article 58(1)'. The same Article states that

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

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

processed (data minimization), would that be an infringement of the Article 5.(1)(c) GDPR? The AEPD held, that it is responsibility of the demandant to make

controller was in breach of Article 38(1) GDPR at the time of the investigation. Regarding the breach of Article 39(1)(b) GDPR, the CNPD concurred with the

of public space respect Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR? The AEPD held that the installation of a video surveillance system under Article 22 LOPDGDD must always

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

fact that the processing of the controller relied on Article (6)(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(c) GDPR as legal basis affects the holding of the DPA since

COMMUNITY OF OWNERS RRR, withNIF *** NIF. 1 , for a violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, in relation to ArticleC / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd

accordance with Article 5 (1) (c) of the General Data Protection Regulation; and (3) whether the controller should be ordered in accordance with Article 58 (2)

infringement of the right to objection specified at Article 21 GDPR in connection with Article 48(1)(b) of the Spanish Telecommunications General Law, as

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR? AEPD considered that the documentation provided offers evidence that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) of the GDPR, by processing

the presumed infringement of article 5.1 b) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, in relation to Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD. SECOND:

procedure to the claimed, by thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c), 5.1 f) and 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article83.5 of the RGPD.FIFTH. On 07/29/20, a Proposal

significant (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR). - basic personal identifiers were affected (name, identification number, the line identifier) (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The

of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD

accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) UK GDPR because it failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(1)(a) and (c) UK GDPR principles of lawfulness

sec. 1 lit. a) and art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in the article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Administrative Procedure Common of

accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1)(c), Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, or both provisions? 2.     Does the answer to Question 1 mean: a)      that the person

1781) in connection with Article 31, Article 58(1)(a) in connection with Article 83(1)-(3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European

ol , thete I eloo n i n I i chtí n g en d i e n st,It is undisputed that there is no Royal Decree .Proximus refers to slot also yet to Article 45.3 WEC as

injunctive relief pursuant to Sec. 8 (1) Sentence 1 in conjunction with Sec. 3a UWG for violation of Art. 9 (1) DSGVO. I. 53. The plaintiff is actively legitimized

the database of the controller. Therefore, the controller violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The DPA considered several aggravating factors, such as the fact

Law §1 para 1 Data Protection Law §1 para 2 Data Protection Law §9 para 1 Media Law §1 no 6 Media Law §1 no 7 Media Law §1 Z8 lit c Law of Parties §1 para

is covered by Article 6, clause 1 (c) of the AVG and not by Article 6, clause 6 (f) of the AVG. The BKR itself refers to Article 6, clause 1 (f) of the GCG

infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, infringement typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned Regulation 2016/679. II breached obligation Article 6.1 of the

(the defendant) for the infringement of Article 6(1) of the GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment of the corresponding

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

Guarantor no. 1/2019 are met. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of Legislative Decree no. 150 of 1 September

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

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public

infringed the accuracy principle included at Article 5(1)(d) GDPR. Consequently, after considering some circumstances [(i) the local scope of the processing activity

have breached the lawfulness of processing principle as per article 6(1) GDPR, as well as article 20 of the Spanish Law on Personal Data Protection and Guarantee

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public

union enshrined in Article 7 of the Spanish Constitution. Therefore, such processing would be lawful in accordance with Article 6(1) GDPR. Share your comments

addressed to the Social Court no. 7 of *** LOCALITY. 1, of June 15, 2020, claim procedure amount *** PROCEDURE.1, and diligence of incorporation into the judicial

with NIF ***NIF.1 (hereinafter the claimant), for the installation of a video surveillance in ***ADDRESS.1, ***APPARTMENTS.1 - ***LOCALITY.1 (SANTACRUZ OF

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

Vodafone España, S.A.U. (the defendant) for the infringement of Article 6(1) of the GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early voluntary payment of the corresponding

party, breach Article 6(1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) referred to the principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a)), as well as

second paragraph, cf. Article 58 (2) (i) of the Privacy Regulation, cf. Article 83, to pay a infringement fee to the Treasury of 1,000,000 - one million

violation of Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that were clear indications that the defendant infringed Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR, principles relating

the basis of article 92, 3° of the WOG. 14. The inspection report shall identify potential breaches of Article 5(1). 2 of the AVG, Article 6 of the AVG

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

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

otherwise makes it impossible to exercise the information function" (Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Deontological Rules) and that the existence of this requirement

claimant’s signature constitute a breach under the GDPR? The AEPD held that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) GDPR, as they had processed the claimant’s data without

imposed a fine of €60000 for the violating Article 5(1)(d) GDPR and €30000 for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in

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

hereinafter referred to as "the defendant". 1. Facts and procedure 1. On 4 June 2018, on the basis of Article 114/1 of the Act of 13 June 2005 on electronic

Appeal against the aforementioned dismissal decision, 1 PAGE □1- □□□ 01721242- □□□ 7-□□ 28- □2-□1-;i .. L 1!11- _JCourt of Appeal Brussels-2020/AR/329- p. 11

held that “A synopsis of the provisions of Article 9(1)(i) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 3(1)(1), (1a) and (2) of the EpiG shows that the competent

obligations arising from Article 5(1)(e) of the GDPR. D. On the breach of the transparency obligation 36. Article 12(1) of the GDPR provides that "the controller

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

investigation granted to the control authorities in article 57.1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). Thus, dated 12/04/20, an information request is addressed

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

entity has violated article 6 of the GDPR, for carrying out a processing of personal data without legitimacy. II Article 6.1 of the GDPR establishes the assumptions

"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

the article 43.1 of said Law. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 12 12/12 II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of

innone of the cases of compulsory designation included (i) in article 37.1RGPD, as well as (ii) in article 34 of the Organic Law on Data Protection andguarantee

DSG §4 GDPR Art 12 GDPR Art 15 GDPR Art 15 Paragraph 1 litc GDPR Art77 UWG §26b paragraph 1 B-VG Art. 133 today B-VG Art. 133 valid from January 1st, 2019

regulated in article 6 of the GDPR. The assumptions that allow the processing of personal data to be considered lawful listed in article 6.1 of the GDPR: 1. Treatment

Articles 13 and 14 GDPR complied with the principle of transparency in Article 5 (2) (1) (a) GDPR, which according to the Authority's assessment i.a. implies that

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

provisions of article 58.2.i) of the GDPR, for the alleged infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5.b) of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT

user registrations, the respondent violated Article 5 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, and Article 32 GDPR, and § 1 para 1 DSG (the Austrian Data Protection Act), which

under Article 82(1) of the GDPR; they can only "lead to [...] non-material damage". [21] (7) Compensation for non-material damage under Art 82(1) GDPR therefore

requirements of article 24 and 32, paragraph 1, AVG and further elaborated in article32, paragraph2, preamble, FISHOrdinancesBIO standards5.1.1,5.1.1.1and5.1.2.1.

the Guarantor pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code "(Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Guarantor Regulation no. 1/2019). The aforementioned

the authority ofcontrol pursuant to Article 58 (2), or failure to provide access in breachof article 58, paragraph 1. "Organic Law 3/2018, on the Protection

provisions of article 43.1 of said Law. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 9/9 II Article 85 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on the

an infractionof article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) and classified as very serious toprescription effects in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD

implementing the ePrivacy Directive and Articles 6(1)(a) and 7 GDPR, in the lights of Article 4(11) and Recital 32 GDPR. Following this report, the GBA issued a

Agency sanction QUALITY for an infringement of Article 58.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, with a fine of €20,000.00. This proposed resolution

Consequently, I have suffered significant non-pecuniary damage, since the person with whom I kissing me was not my partner at that time. I request that

complaint - infringes Article 6(1) GDPR, by unlawfully processing the complainant's personal data, in relation to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, which governs the

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

principles are found under Article 5(1)(a) and Article 5(2) GDPR respectively]. The Spanish DPA even made reference to Recital 40 GDPR on the legality of processing

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

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

limit mandated by Article 33(1). Did the secretariat of the DPA breach its data security obligations under Articles 32(1), 33(1), and 34(1)? The Datatilsynet

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

employee of the entity - infringes Article 32. 2 and 32.4 of the RGPD, an infringement punishable under Article 83.4.a of the GDPR. Assessing the circumstances

responsibility under Article 26 GDPR. Categories of data subjects and categories of personal data Pursuant to Article 30 (I) (1) (c) GDPR, a list must contain