Search results

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

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

scope of the GDPR which protects the personal data of natural persons. On the merits, he found that the limitation in Article 23(1)(j) GDPR applies to the

Information Acts and the GDPR. Due to the questions of EU law raised by the case with regard to Article 23(1)(e) GDPR and Article 23(1)(j) GDPR, the BVerwG had

democratic society as required under Article 23(1)(j) GDPR. Moreover, the exception provided for under Article 6(4) GDPR which allows processing for different

out in Article 23(1) GDPR. § 21(2) TTDSG serves the enforcement of civil claims and thus pursues an objective mentioned in Article 23(1)(j) GDPR, which

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

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

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

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

to personal data (Article 47(2)(n) GDPR; a duty for the group to have data protection audits on regular basis (Article 47(2)(j) GDPR); and to designate

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

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)

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

provided for in Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or, as the case may be, Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, and consent is withdrawn according to Article 7(3) GDPR, data must be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proportionality of the measure under Article 6(4) GDPR, in accordance with the objectives referred to in Article 23(1) GDPR. It recalled that these objectives

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

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

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

35.1 and 35.7; Under Article 100, § 1, 5° of the LCA, to impose a reprimand _for violations of Articles 30.1.a) and 30.1.d},; Pursuant to Article 108(1)

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

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 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”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

(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

updates. In the near future step 1 PAGE □1-□□□□149307□-□□□3-□□22- □1-□1-� L _J' Court of Appeal Brussels -2019/AR/1006 -p. 4 13-1 the Bank X from the current

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

legal bases of contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR), legal obligation (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR) and legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) and determined that

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

Data Protection 23. The claimant relies on Article 82, as supplemented by s.168 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Article 82 of the UK-GDPR provides data

pursuant to Article 47(1) and 48.1 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October, on the limitation of the infringement of article 6.1 of the RGPD typified in article 83.5 a)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 in

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

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

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

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

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

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

this purchase contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR). Therefore, the processing is compatible with the GDPR. In the Netherlands, as of 1 July 2018 a passenger who

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

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

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

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

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

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

referred to as ABN AMRO. 1.2 1.2 [Appellants] lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal on 1 May 2019, received at the Court Registry on 1 May 2019, against the

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)

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

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

therefore violated Articles 9(1) GDPR out of negligence. The DPA fined the controller €1,600,000 pursuant of Article 83(5)(a) GDPR and considered this a high

In an Article 60 GDPR procedure, the Danish DPA reprimanded Danske bank for a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. A technical error resulted in the unauthorised

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

details. 201907720/1/A3. Date of judgment: 9 December 2020 SECTION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judgment on the appeals of: 1. [appellant under 1], residing at [place

right of access under Article 15 GDPR? By denying the complainant access, did the respondent infringe Articles 12(1) or 12(2) GDPR? The NAIH that the complainant's

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

violation of articles 5.1.f, of the RGPD -as set out in Article 83(5)(a) of the said regulation and 5(1)(f) in relation to Article 32(1)(b) and (c) - specified

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

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,

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

RESOLVES:FIRST: IMPOSE BBB , with NIF *** NIF.1 , for a violation of the article5.1.d) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a penalty of € 3,000

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

constitutes sensitive data within the meaning of Article 9 GDPR. The DPA alluded to Article 9(1) GDPR which prohibits the processing of these special categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

controller violated Article 5(1)(d) GDPR ("accuracy"), but a more natural conclusion would be to find a violation of Article 32(1)(d) GDPR ("adoption of adequate

supply data, without the consent of the data subject, a breach of Article 6 (1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the processing of data relating to electricity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

an alleged violation of article 6 of the GDPR typified as an infringement of basic principles for processing in article 83.5 GDPR. In determining the amount

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

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

assessment pursuant to Article 35 of the GDPR and, depending on the outcome, also have to consult the AP beforehand (Article 36 of the GDPR). In addition, as

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/

concerns the following in this appeal. 3.1.1. [the employee] , born on [date of birth] 1964, was employed on 1 September 1986 joined Trigion's legal predecessor

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

"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

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

that this would also be contrary to the AVG. Article 82 of the AVG 12. Article 82 of the AVG reads as follows: 1. Any person who has suffered material or non-material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Section 3 of the Finnish Act on the Protection

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

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

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,

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

under Article 4(1) GDPR. These statistics even included health data which qualify as a special category of personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. The Datatilsynet

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

commercial SMS on your mobile line ***PHONE.1. In this sense, article 21 of the LSSI provides the following: "1. The sending of advertising or promotional

be referred to respectively as '[plaintiff]' and '[the State]'. 1 The proceedings 1.1. The course of the procedure is evidenced by - the summons with productions;

basis under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, the Court found that the data subject cannot exercise his right to object pursuant to Article 21(1) GDPR. Secondly, the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act and, subsequently, the GDPR. Request for compensation in case his data is processed unlawfully is also in line with the GDPR. The facts that this may

e7141c720c53441c2483c; has_js=1; _gid=GA1.2.1837808855.1597415922; _gat=1 Upgrade-Insecure-Requests 1 If-None-Match" 1597405902-1" Cache-Control max-age=0”

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

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,

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

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

Service and transferred to the Disputes Chamber pursuant to article 62, § 1 j° article 92, 1° WOG. 10. On 7 February 2020, the Disputes Chamber invites

breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Was the publication of the census copies a breach of the data integrity and confidentiality principle under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR

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

amended: Article 3,, Article 4, number 11,, Article 7,, Article 51, paragraph one,, Article 12, paragraph 3,, Article 17,, Article 19,, Article 57, paragraph

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

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

had been unlawful because Article 6(1)(e) GDPR provided a valid legal basis and there was no violation of Article 6(4) GDPR. The controller is the Minister

title of documents containing sensitive information was a breach of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, highlighting that the breach was reported to the municipality by

Protection Act) § 22. The provisions of Articles 13(1) to (3), Article 14(1), Article 15 and Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation shall not apply

(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

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

According to the data subject, it follows from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 79 GDPR, that they should not be ordered to pay those

of GDPR Article 5(1)(a) (processing must be fair, lawful and satisfy a condition under Article 6), Article 5(1)(d) (data must be accurate), Article 10

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

defined in the first paragraph. Article 4 of the Act, cf. Points 2 and 4 Article 3 of the Act and points 1 and 2. Article 4 of the Regulation. According

be answered on 23/04/2019 and also forwarded to the Court of Occupation (Document 26}." r PAGE □1-□□□□ 1429503- □□□4-□□ 15-□2-□1-;i L _J,Court of appeal

Pursuant to Article 60 (2), a request to initiate an official data protection procedure may be made in the case provided for in Article 77 (1) of the General

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

(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

" *** DIRECCION.2 *** *** LOCALIDAD.1 CCAA.1 " . In section“ NIF ” the *** NIF.1. And in the section " Telephone 1" the mobile number*** PHONE . 2. 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

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

these allegations, she placed reliance upon Recitals 1, 4 and 7 together of Article 4(11) of GDPR. Whelan J., has stated the evidence indicates that the disclosure

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

breach and had failed to do so within the timeframe set out in Article 33(1) of the GDPR, meaning that the company had breached this provision. Consequently

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

Based on 20 of 23 working days in the relevant period, this amounts to an amount of 20/23 x € 3,297.00 x 1.08 = € 3,096.31 gross in salary, 20/23 x € 4,110

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

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

basis of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR because its processing activities infringed Articles 5(1)(a)(b) and (c), 6(1), 12(1)-(5), 15(1) and 17(1) of the GDPR

him. Article 23 of the GDPR and Article 41 of the UAVG specify the restrictions on the right of access. What do the parties on appeal think? 3.1. Plaintiff

questions: 1° Should Article 72.2 of the e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(f) of that directive and with Article 95 of the

in point 1 of the judgment pursuant to Article 145 § 1 of the Act on Administrative Law. 1 of the judgment pursuant to Article 145 § 1 item. 1c of the Act

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

for the performance of the contract.” It compared Article 7(b) Directive 95/46/EC to Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and found that the two are “almost identical”. Hence

€ 184 to the plaintiff for paid justice. This statement was made by Mr. J.J.J. Catsburg, judge, in the presence of Mr. L.E. - L.E. Mollerus, clerk. The

Federation pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) of the General Data Protection Regulation. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(j) and Article 66(1) of the General Data Protection

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

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

6GDPR,Article 5.1.b),Article 5.1.a)j°Article 13andArticle 27 GDPR due to the current processing activities. 23. The purpose of this decision is to inform the

HmbKrebsRG Article 9 (1) GDPR, Article 6 (1) GDPR, Article 5 (1) in conjunction with Articles 12, 13 and/or Article 14 GDPR and/or Article 5 (1) (in particular

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

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

at €1,068 (1 point for submitting the notice of appeal, 1 point for appearing at the hearing, with a value per point of € 534 and weighting factor 1). Furthermore

their employees. The DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Following a visit to the premises of two public

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

collected for other purposes which would be incompatible with Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(4) GDPR. The CE dismissed that claimed by recalling that both

controller was. Article 22 of the Danish Data Protection Act serves as a restriction of Article 15 GDPR based on Article 23 GDPR. However, Article 22 of the

is processed pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Data Protection Regulation. 1, letter e, Article 9, subsection 2, letter j, and § 10 of the Data Protection

Authorities to receive the information as referred to in Article 15, paragraph 1 a to h GDPR." 3.1. The Division agrees with the judgment of the District

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

processing pursuant to Article 6(1) GDPR even if the data protection authority had only based its investigation on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The controller operates

affected" within the meaning of Art. 15 para. 1 GDPR. The right to information under Article 15.1 of the GDPR is also not transferred to the insolvency administrator

court upheld Article 6(1)(e) GDPR as the legal basis for the processing of personal data. Furthermore, according to the court, Article 9(2)(j) GDPR states that

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

violation of Article 5(2) GPDR since the controller failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(1) GDPR and a violation of Article 44 GDPR since the controller

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

consent was given obtained (potential violation of Article 6.1 a) GDPR): ▪ Article 6.1 a) GDPR and Article 129 of the law on electronic communication (WEC)

breach of Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD held that the facts complained of involving the violation by the City Council of the provisions of Article 13 of the

jurisprudence/literature, 1 hour studying documents/file, 1 hour consulting with [name of defendant] , 1 hour letters/e-mail various, 1 hour preparing the hearing

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

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,

law of the Member States. Article 6 paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 letter e in conjunction with Paragraph 3 sentence 1 letter b GDPR was missing (para. 24 f

With regard to limitation periods, article 72.1.k) of the LOPDGDD, establishes: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679

mrs. J.G. Reus, T.J.M. de Weerd and A.M. van Aerde in Amsterdam. Parties are hereinafter referred to as Blauw and Nebu. 1. The case in brief 1.1. Blauw

ING against the processing of his personal data on the basis of Article 21 paragraph 1 GDPR due to his specific situation. Now that ING has rejected 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

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

proceeding personal data under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Lursoft claim to be have such a legal basis under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. However, this was rejected by

connection with a possible exceeding of the reasonable term. Considerations 1.1 At the request of the appellant, the Foundation was registered in the trade

assessment 4.1 ING has requested the Subdistrict Court on the basis of the provisions of Article 7:671 b paragraph 1 under a and Article 7:669 paragraph

of Article 5 of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 6 (1) (a) and (c) and Article 6 (1) 1, letter e, and the Data Protection Act § 11, para. 1. However

pursuant to article 32(1) of the GDPR. The AP disagrees. The conclusion of the AP that OLVG does not comply with article 32(1) of the GDPR by not meeting

Number: 2019/211CA Circuit Court Record Number: 2018/5134 Noonan J. Haughton J. Ní Raifeartaigh J. IN THE MATTER OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACTS, 1988 AND 2003 AND

pursuant to Article 83(5)(e) GDPR. Second, the DPA considered the non-compliance with the summons to breach breach of Article 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The delay

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

of the article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, considered very serious for the purposes of prescription in article 72.1.i) of

complaint hearing, the bB (OZ 23 to W245 2252208-1), the BF1 (OZ 24 to W245 2252208-1) and BF2 (OZ 25 to W245 2252208-1) Observations. In these observations

limitation under Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR and the principle of lawfulness fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. ii. In relation

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 to Public

rejected the claim under Article 15 GDPR on this point. Regarding the residual recordings, the Court pointed out that Article 15(3) GDPR gives the data subject

Regulation, Article 6 (1) (f)Article 13 (2) (f) and Article 14 (2) (g), Article 14 (1) andArticle 15 (1) (h) and Article 21 (1)infringement of Article 18 (1) (a)

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

considered whether the Polish DPA correctly applied Article 5(1)(c) and (f) of the GDPR and whether the GDPR provisions would be applied at all in the given

therefore infringed Article 30.1 of the AVG. On 23 September 2021, the Dispute Tribunal decides, on the basis of Article 95, § 1, 1° and Article 98 of the CPC

has not violated the article 15 of the GDPR, infringement typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR. IV. Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR "Security of treatment"

award compensation for immaterial damages. Article 82 of the AVG 16. Article 82 of the AVG reads as follows: 1. Any person who has suffered material or non-material

Vodafone processed personal data without a legal basis according to Article 6(1) GDPR. The complainant has been a victim of identity theft with the data

consulted before processing, pursuant to Article 36 GDPR. Fourth, the Court noted that, pursuant to Article 10 GDPR and Article 31 Implementation Act, the IP addresses

assessment Scope of right of access according to Article 15 GDPR 3.1. The purpose of Article 15 of the GDPR is to enable a data subject to become aware of

((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

data under Article 9 GDPR, which can only be lawful if one of the exceptions of Article 9(2) GDPR apply. With respect to Article 9(2)(h) GDPR, the DPC held

minimization principle (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR), since the processing was based on a legal obligation pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. Share your comments

of personal data under Article 17(1)(c) GDPR. Consequently, the DPA reprimanded the controller for violating Article 17(1)(c) GDPR and ordered it to delete

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

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

federal government or a state (Article 23 (1) e GDPR in conjunction with Sections 32c (1) no. 1, 32b (1) sentence 1 no. 1 b AO). According to media reports

negligence of the infringement (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) the impact on basic personal identifiers (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR) Share your comments here! Share

(2) GDPR (accountability) II.1.1. Article 5, paragraph 1, a) (lawfulness) j° Article 6, paragraph 1 GDPR II.1.1.1. Findings in the Inspection Report 11

should have notified the DPA under Article 33(1) GDPR and the data subjects affected by the breach under Article 34(1) GDPR. Regarding the corrective measure

assessed according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and Article 9 GDPR. Second, lawyers are data controllers within the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR with regard to their

be equivalent to a DPIA under Article 35 GDPR. For this reason, the AP held that the controller violated Article 35(1) GDPR. In this, the AP considered it

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.

personal data breach to comply with Article 32 GDPR and by reference to the principle set down in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In particular, this request concerned

according to which the non-compliance with Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR with regard to 9 See CNPD Guidelines (Point 4.1.), Available at: https://cnpd.public.lu/fr/dossiers-

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 in

dissuasive" as per Article 83(1). In addition to a breach of Article 6(1)(f), the lack of organisational measures pursuant to Article 5(2) was weighted

current personal data processing has violated Article 5 (1) (f), Article 32.1 and 32.2 and Article 33.1 and 33.5 of the Data Protection Regulation. The

offence against privacy included in Article 197(1) of the Spanish Criminal Code, with the aggravating circumstance from Article 197(5) of being data related to

parties will hereinafter be referred to as [plaintiff] and Nijestee. 1 Proceedings 1.1 The course of the procedure is evidenced by - the summons - the conclusion

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

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 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

infringement of article 6.1 of the RGPD that establishes the assumptions that allow the processing of personal data to be considered lawful. Article 6 of the

consultation. of the Guarantor pursuant to article 36 of the Regulation "(article 110 of the Code, article 9, paragraph 2, letter j) and par. 4 of the Regulation)

under Article 3 GDPR was also fulfilled, as the controller had an official seat in Vienna. In general, the material scope under Article 2(1) GDPR would

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

legislator used the open clause of Article 6(1)(c) and (e) GDPR, in combination with Article 6(2) and Article 6(3) GDPR, to create a legal basis for the

specifically mention GDPR provisions. However, the case is based on the concept of ‘criminal information’, which is regulated by Article 10 GDPR. This provision

the GDPR introduces a prohibition on their processing (Article 9(1) GDPR), while allowing for explicit and limitative exceptions (Article 9(2) GDPR). In

articles 28(1) and 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and 19 Reprimand for the violation of Article 36(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 13(1) of Law

notes that though Article 82(1) of the GDPR states that full compensation for actual non-material damage resulting from breaches of the GDPR must take place

that the GDPR applies to the request for removal. The request shall be based on Article 21 in conjunction with Article 79 of the GDPR and Article 35(2) of

notified in accordance with Article 34 GDPR. Therefore, the DPA found that the controller violated Article 33(1) and Article 34(1) GDPR and imposed a fine of

of (sensitive) personal data in Article 9(1) GDPR are closely linked to the ideas behind discrimination law. The GDPR assumes that this type of information

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

of a driving licence - pursuant to Article 102(1)(4) of the Act on Vehicle Drivers in connection with Article 7(1)(1) and (2) of the Act of 20 March 2015

to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO), in line with Article 37(1) GDPR. Article 37(1) GDPR envisages two situations where private controllers (such

deadline set out in Article 33(1) GDPR. 6. Datatilsynet’s Assessment 6.1. Findings of an Infringement of Article 33(1) GDPR 6.1.1. Introduction As noted

the alleged violation of articles 32.1 and 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4.a) and 83.5.a) of the GDPR, with warning. Receipt by the claimant

presented the matter Applicable law Article 4 (7) and (8), Article 28 (3), Article 58 (2) (b) and (i), Article 83 (1), (2), (4) (a) of the EU General Data

non-compliance with the requirements of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR and non-compliance with the requirements of article 5.1.e) of the GDPR. 10. On February 28, 2020,

€7,80) for the breach of Articles 5(1)(b)(c) GDPR, 6(1) GDPR, 12(1) GDPR, 7(2) GDPR, 9(1) GDPR, 13 GDPR and 14 GDPR. Independent of any instructions from

under Article 3 GDPR was also fulfilled, as the controller had an official seat in Vienna. Moreover, the material scope under Article 2(1) GDPR also applied

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 to Public

notice of inability to attend. Considerations 1. The court ruled in the appeal case without a hearing. Article 8:54 of the General Administrative Law Act

to data portability; when treatment is based on Article 6 (1) Article 9 (1) (a) or Article 9 (1) Article 2 (2) (a), the right to withdraw consent at any

for: processing personal data without a legal basis, in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR: €70,000 and; not complying with their obligation to erase the data

claimed, by the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned GDPR. FIFTH: Having been notified of the

alleged violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of article 83.5.b) of the aforementioned GDPR and considered for

October 2022. 18See Art. 60(6) GDPR. 3 4. Legal Background 4.1. Scope of Application of the GDPR Under Article 2(1) GDPR, the Regulation: “[…] applies to

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), according to Article 43.1 of said Law provides. SECOND: Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure Common Administrative

the controller was in breach of Article 33(1) GDPR, Article 33(3) GDPR, Articles 34(1) and 34(2) GDPR, and Article 5(2) GDPR, Firstly, the Polish DPA held

based on Article 3, Clause 2, Article 5, Clause 1 of the Data Regulation "a", "b" and point 2, Article 6, point 1, point "a", Article 7, Article 27, point

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.

provided to the interested parties based on Article 13 GDPR and to non-contactable persons based on Article 14 GDPR. The information notice includes the right

[defendant 1] and [defendant 2]. 1. The procedure 1.1. The course of the procedure is evidenced by: - the summons of September 14, 2020 with exhibits 1 to 24

territorial scope of the GDPR, Article 3 of the GDPR is assumed of two different cases. In the first case (Article 3.1 of the GDPR), the data processing carried

DPA, as provided by Article 37(1)(a) GDPR and Article 37(7) GDPR. The DPA noted that pursuant to the entry into force of the GDPR, public bodies were obliged

satisfoactory answers. Thus, Article 15 GDPR was not violated. Furthermore, the judge ruled that the e-screener did not infringed Article 22 GDPR. Indeed, the judge

pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) GDPR condemns the Applicant as data controller for violating Article 12 of the GDPR. and Article 15 (1) and (3) of the GDPR. The

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

Court considered that pursuant to Article 12(3) GDPR, data controllers must provide data subjects with information on Article 15 to 22 requests without delay

and finally version 1.1 has been released on the 22nd s.m. It is also stated that there was also a version between version 1.0.4 and 1.1 made updates to the

controller violated Article 33(1) GDPR by failing to inform the DPA of the data breach. Second, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 28(1), (3) and

regarded as a request under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Article 34 of the Gdpr Implementation Act states that a decision on such a request by

(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

questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 1. Should Article 55(3) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that “processing operations of courts

A50715366, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. of the GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 1. APPOINT D. B.B.B. as instructor.

status of the plaintiff according to Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. The Court recalled that deletion request under Article 17(1)(d) must be granted if the personal

B28905784, for an infringement of the article 5.1.d) of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, with a fine of 10,000 euros (ten honey

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE A.A.A., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infraction of article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD, a fine of €2,000 (two

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

(2016/679) Article 12(1), 2, 3, 4 and 6, Article 5(1)(c), Article 15, Article 17, Article 25, Article 58(2)(b) and (d), Article 83 paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4

were initiated, based on Article 63 and Article 64 LPACAP and an infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR typified in Article 83(5) GDPR. After the proceedings

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

in the sum of £500,000. Breaches of GDPR Contravention of Article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR 47. Article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR has been contravened as the Cabinet

Para. 1 Hs. 1 E. has expired due to fulfillment, § 362 Para. 1 BGB. The defendant answered the question in the letter dated November 27, 2018 ad 1. The

2016/679 (hereinafter: the GDPR). In view of Article 34 of the GDPR Implementation Act, this is a decision within the meaning of Article 1:3 of the General Administrative

information and granting it access to personal data in accordance with Article 58 (1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The data subject filed a complaint with the Polish DPA, claiming

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

the data subject’s consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR but on compliance with legal obligations under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and that the data subject did not

violation of: 1. Article 5 (1) (a) and (2) and Article 6 (1) GDPR; 2. Article 5, Article 24 (1) and 25 (1) and (2) GDPR; 3. Article 12 paragraph 1, paragraph

concerns Article 9 AVG instead of Article 10 AVG and Article 9 AVG does not apply to criminal personal data (see legal ground 4.23 and MvT to Article 22 UAVG)

the GDPR, a controller may first assess, in view of the system and the text of that Article, whether the exception in Article 17(3)(e) of the GDPR applies

personal data under Article 32 GDPR, Article 24, Article 5(1)(f) and Article 5(2), as well as § 26(1) of the Personal Data Act and §§ 22 and 23 of the Health

grounds for processing under Article 6(1) GDPR. Finally, the NAIH held that the controller was in breach of Article 12(2) GDPR for mis-registering the data

violates the principle of legality enshrined in article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR. SAW In order to establish the administrative

under the GDPR. 14. By Article 57(1) of the GDPR, it is the Commissioner'task to monitor and enforce the application of the GDPR. 15. By Article 58(2)(d)of

Protection Regulation 11 Article 5, paragraph 2, letter b GDPR 12 Article 4, under 1 GDPR 13 Marginal number 76 in the summons

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

for by Article 51 of the GDPR. 17. By Article 57(1) of the GDPR, it is the Commissioner's task to monitor and enforce the application of the GDPR. 18. By

Art. 23 (1) lit. e) GDPR, to be contradicted. Because this standard does not meet the requirements of the optional opening clause of Art. 23 Para. 1 lit

violation of: 1. Article 5.1.f) and 5.2 of the GDPR, Article 24.1 of the GDPR, Article 25.1 of the GDPR and Articles 32.1 and 32.2 GDPR; 2. Articles 35.1, 35.2

permissible under Article 23 GDPR, or must the principle of chargeability remain inapplicable as a national law contrary to Article 23 GDPR? The Supreme Court

of item 1. Paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 Article 8 and Article 9 Act no. 90/2018, cf. point a, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 Article 5 and paragraph 1 Article

rescission of X's membership, AAEA had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1) GDPR and Article 9(1) GDPR. The Commissioner therefore decided to impose

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

accordance with the law (Article 2 of the Act on land and mortgage registers and mortgage and Article 20 (1) point 1 and Article 24 section 2 of the Geodetic

technical and organisational measures required by Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32(1)(a) and Article 32(1)(b). This case got a lot of media attention in Norway

DPA held that the controller had violated Article 6(1) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR, thus also Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, for lack of legal basis for publishing

No. 1 and Request No. 2 the requested information, which was requested from SIA on the basis of Article 58, Clause 1 e) of GDPR and FPDAL Article 5, Part

against Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR. Now that this processing cannot be based on another legal basis as referred to in Article 6(1) of the GDPR, the AP

the laptop theft, in breach of Article 32(1) GDPR. Moreover, the DPA found a violation of Articles 24(1) and 25(1) GDPR because the controller failed to

failed to comply with Articles 5 (1)(f) and 32(1) and (2) of the UK GDPR. Article 5 (1)(f) and 32(1) and (2) of the UK GDPR 1546. The Commissioner finds that

approximately €29,250 on Mermaids for its violation of Article 5(1)(f), Article 32(1) and Article 32(2) of the GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news

to erasure under Article 17(1)(a), (c) or (d) GDPR, because the controller was processing the data lawfully under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and the processing

has been ensured, cf. 1., 2., 3. and 6. number. Paragraph 1 Article 8 of the Act and points a, b, c and f of paragraph 1. Article 5 of the regulation. The

infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, and for the purposes of prescription in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD

tried to base the processing on contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) or legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR), the requirement of necessity was not met

infringement of article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, and for the alleged infringement of article 13, typified in article 83.5.b) of

infringement of Article 5.1.b), c) and e) GDPR and Article 5.1.a) j° Article 6.1 GDPR; - on the basis of Article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of

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 in

because he violated Article 6 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, Article 5 (1) points a) and b), Article 5 (2) and Article 15 (3). V.2. The Authority

court further assessed the requirements of Article 82 GDPR in length. It established that the Article 82(1) GDPR requires the data subject to have suffered

paragraphs 1 and 2 GDPR). In this context, Defam is the controller (Article 4(7) of the GDPR). Article 6(1) of the GDPR provides that processing of personal data

supported by the structure of Article 78 GDPR, which is strictly intertwined with Article 77 GDPR. Indeed, Article 78(2) GDPR provides the data subject with

AULA itself. 3.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from the data protection regulation article 32, subsection 1, that the data controller

the data subject made an erasure request under Article 17 GDPR and an objection under Article 21 GDPR to have their negative registration no longer processed

Regulation) Article 5, paragraph 1, subparagraph c, Article 25, Article 58, paragraph 2, subparagraph d, and Article 87, Section 29, subsection 1 of the Data

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 in

not incur major costs of implementation which under Article 32(2) GDPR makes a breach of 32(1) GDPR more likely. Despite the fact that not all data was

prescription in article 72 of the LOPDGDD and both are typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. In this regard, article 29.5 of Law 40/2015, of October 1, on the

According to Article 12 (1) GDPR, a controller must only take "appropriate measures" so that the notification obligation pursuant to Article 15 GDPR is fulfilled

comply with the principles under Article 5 GDPR, including the principle of integrity and confidentiality (Article 5(1)(f) GDPR). According to this principle

processing in accordance with Article 5 (1) (a) of the Data Protection Regulation in accordance with Article 12 (1) and Article 13 of the General Data Protection

interfering with court decisions. The DPA found a breach of Article 33 GDPR and Article 34(1) and (2) GDPR resulting in a fine of €2,324. Share your comments here

57(1)(h) GDPR, cf. Article 58(1)(a) GDPR, Article 58(1)(b) GDPR, Article 58(1)(e) GDPR and Article 58(1)(f) GDPR. The DPA conducted their inspection on 6 September

basis of Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the Law on the Protection of personal data (PLDPR) and Art. 57, §1, b. "e" of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), considering

Protection Act 2018 is contrary to Article 23 of the GDPR and Article 23 of the UK GDPR: [2021] EWCA Civ 800, [2021] 1 WLR 3611 ("the Main Judgment"). We

applicability of Article 22 GDPR for this reason. The Court reiterated the importance of Article 13 GDPR, Article 14 GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. Since the controller

requested prior consultation under Article 36(1) GDPR from the Dutch DPA Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens ("AP"). Article 36(1) GDPR requires a data controller to

to as the GDPR) in accordance with Article 5 (1) (a), a The principle of purpose limitation under Article 5 (1) (b) of the GDPR and Article 5 (1) the principle

principles of treatment included in article 5 of the RGPD. We will highlight article 5.1.c) of the GDPR which states that: "1. Personal data will be c) adequate

in the GDPR and the DPA. They are obliged by Article 5(2) to adhere to the data processing principles set out in Article 5(1) of the GDPR. Article 5(2) makes

finding likely violations of Article 5(1)(c), 8, 9, 13 and 35 GDPR. The AEPD found a likely violation of Article 35 GDPR. Article 35 GPDR requires that a data

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

violation of Article 5(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) GDPR. Furthermore, there was no legal basis for these processing operations under Article 6(1) GDPR. The DPA

hereinafter referred to as [B] , authorized representative: mr. J. M. Eerkes. 1 , The procedure is 1.1. Earlier, in the court of judgment between the parties,

processing to be unlawful. The processing violated Article 7(2) GDPR, Article 7(4) GDPR and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The controller was fined 2,000,000 HUF (approx

Administrative offense (s) after: Article 5 (1) (a), Article 9 (1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 83 (1) and (5) (a) GDPR, OJ L 2016/119, 1 as amended L 2016/314

procedure against the controller on 3 October 2023 for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. On 1 January 2024, the investigator for the Catalan DPA proposed a

accordance with Article 31 of the GDPR, Article 31, due to the security breach , GDPR. According to Article 83 Paragraph 4 Letter a of the GDPR, these two provisions

request to data erasure (Article 95(1)(5) LCA). The DPA also issued a warning (pursuant to Article 95(1)(4) LCA and Article 58(2)(a) GDPR) for the controller

as amended: Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, Article 17, Article 51, paragraph one, Article 57, paragraph one, letter f, as well as Article 77, paragraph

share their location, in violation of Article 5 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 7 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, and Article 25 GDPR. The DPA, however, claimed that the

defense briefs of 1 June 2022 (Information pursuant to Article 13 of the GDPR for collaborators; Information pursuant to Article 13 of the GDPR for employees;

place per Article 46(2) GDPR. For these violations, the DPA reprimanded the controller and ordered it to comply with the GDPR (specifically Article 46 GDPR)

shortened. 1.2. Rabobank has argued against this. Assessment framework 1.3. The assessment framework in this case is Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR: “Processing

of the principle of legitimation (article 6.1 of the GDPR) in the first case and the principle of consent (article 6.1 of the LOPD) in the second and that

purposes and means of processing, it is actually a controller. Article 24 GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR establish the principle of responsibility, which means that

the organisation S.Á.Á for a security breach pursuant to Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR. The security breach resulted in the disclosure of the names

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,

under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Furthermore, the controller was responsible for implementing appropriate security measures according to Article 32(1)(b) GDPR

obligation to inform the persons concerned 1. On the principles 27. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the GDPR, the "controller take appropriate measures

fulfill the requirements of Article 28 GDPR. The DPA concluded that the controller failed to comply with Article 28(1)(3) and (9) GDPR by not concluding a written

the regulation of the Guarantor n. 1/2000; RAPPORTEUR prof. Pasquale Stanzione; WHEREAS 1. Inspection of the company. 1.1. As part of a complex investigation

hereinafter referred to separately [defendant sub 1] and SIN-NL and jointly [defendants c.s.]. 1 The procedure 1.1. The course of the procedure is clear: -the

objections, page 2, Ad.A.1.). 4 See in particular Articles 5.1.a) and 12 of the GDPR, see also recital (39) of the GDPR. 5 See EDPS Endorsement 1/2018 decision of

based on the stated justification facts (§1 Abs.2 DSG, Article 6 paragraph 1 lit. a and alternatively lit. f GDPR) was unlawful.” As a reason, the relevant

internal emails and messages regarding the data subject (Articles 12 and 15(1) GDPR). He also requested access to personal data which was processed by the controller's

under Article 10 ECHR and Article 11 of the Charter. The DPA also added the GDPR provided an exception to its own, specifically Article 17(3)(a) GDPR, ⁣ which

deletion request, the Court examined Article 6(1)(f), Article 17, and Article 21 GDPR. The second sentence of Article 21(1) stipulates that the controller (the

failed to comply with the provisions of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Furthermore, InfoMentor did not ensure sufficient

violating Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 17(1)(a), Article 17(1)(d) and Article 25(1), cf. Article 5(1)(c), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(1)(e) and Article 5(1)(f)

(2) GDPR; b. a breach of Article 12(1) and (6) GDPR, Article 13(1) and (2) GDPR and Article 14(1) and (2) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and

be checked against Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR in conjunction with Article 6 (4) GDPR. This means that the interests of [claimant under 1] and [claimant under

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

erasure (Article 17 of the GDPR), the right to restriction (Article 18 GDPR), as well as the right of opposition (Article 21 GDPR) 91. Article 17 of the

the Foundation. The DPA held that the Foundation violated Article 33(1), Article 34(1) GDPR by failing to notify the DPA of a personal data protection

38.1, 38.2 and 39.1. a) of the GDPR; - to issue an injunction against the company "Company A" to come into compliance with Article 38.1 of the GDPR, within

follows: Article 83 paragraph 1, 2 and 5 lit. a GDPR:Article 83, paragraph ,, 2 and 5 lit. a, GDPR: "Article 83 General conditions for imposing fines 1. Each

claimed party, for violation of article 6.1 of the GDPR. SAW Classification of the infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

pursuant to Article 56(1) GDPR. 6. Datatilsynet’s Assessment 6.1. Mowi’s Failure to Respond to the Complainant’s Access Request Under Article 12(3) GDPR, controllers

information obligation set out in Article 13 GDPR and in breach of the principle of data minimisation set out in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The CNPD carried out an audit

violation of article 15 of the RGPD. V Classification of the violation of article 15 of the GDPR If confirmed, the aforementioned violation of article 15 of the

As a result, the party involved had infringed Article 5(1)(a) and (c) and Article 6(1) DSGVO, Article 50b(1) of the Data Protection Act 2000 (DSG 2000) for

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

violated Article 14(1) and (2) GDPR. Because it failed to provide clear and transparent information, the controller also violated Article 12(1) GDPR. The DPA

accordance with Article 5.1.a) j° Article 6.1 of the GDPR, any processing of personal data have a legal basis. Article 6.1 of the GDPR stipulates that

copy under Article 15(3) GDPR, as interpreted by the CJEU in case C-487/21, is part of the right to access of data subjects under Article 15 GDPR, which is

under article 6 GDPR. However, the Court concluded that an immediate notification sent to the data subject was not necessary under article 34 GDPR. In particular

fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as well as the data subject’s right to information under Articles 12 and 13 GDPR, and issued a fine of €10

In accordance with article 92 WOG, the Disputes Chamber may be seized: 1 °by the frontline service, in accordance with Article 62, § 1, for the treatment

that the controller breached Article 5(1)(f), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b) and (d), and Article 32(2) GDPR due to a lack of a reliably

controller €5,400 for infringements of Articles 5(1)(f) and 5(2) GDPR as well as Article 25(1) and Article 32(1) GDPR. First, the controller did not ensure adequate

the LPBCFT before the TGSS. III Article 6.1 of the GDPR According to article 6 of the GDPR “Legitimacy of processing: 1. Treatment will only be legal if

transactions associated with their products ”and is broken down into points 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. In all of them appears as option "No". SECOND: In view of the

sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and sec. 3, art. 32 sec. 1 and 2 and article. 34 sec. 1, as well as art. 83 sec. 1-3 and

terms established in the article 6.1.e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 " It should be remembered that article 6.1.e) of the RGPD states; 1. The treatment will

response to an earlier VT report on 1 February 2019. Both VT reports come from the Rotterdam police unit. 1.2. On March 23, 2020, the claimant requested Safe

limitation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and against the provisions of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1)(f) GDPR in conjunction with Article 6(4) GDPR. Further

interest. Based on Article 2 (1) of the GDPR, the GDPR must be applied to the data management in this case. GDPR Article 4, point 1: "personal data": for

No Article 5 (1) (a) and (b), Article 6 (1), Article 6 (4) Article 12 (1), Article 13, Article 21 (1) and (2), Article 24 (1), Article 25 Article 1 (1)

legitimate interests under Article 14(2)(b) GDPR, and so get the possibility to exercise their right under Article 21(1) GDPR. Therefore, the DPA reprimanded

of the GDPR. In fact the activities specified within that part of the GDPR are placed within the scope of UK GDPR by Article 2(1)(a) UK GDPR: 2(1). This

lawyer in Groningen. 1 The process sequence 1.1. By interlocutory order dated February 18, 2020, an oral hearing was set for the case. 1.2. Due to the court's

the breach, pursuant to the obligation expressed in Article 34 GDPR, in conjunction with Article 12 GDPR. Based on this assessment, the DPA issued an administrative

accordance with Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1) GDPR, and in the case of health data which constitute sensitive data, also Article 9(2) GDPR. The DPA analysed whether

meet the requirement of accuracy or comprehensibility of Article 12, paragraph 1, sentence 1 GDPR. [6]                                                  

constituted special categories of data according to article 9(1) GDPR. According to Article 5(2) GDPR the data controller is responsible for implementing

carried out in compliance with the GDPR. Therefore, the DPA determined that the controller violated Article 24(1) GDPR by using this safety mechanism. The

infringement of Article 33(1) GDPR, a fine of €145,600 for infringement of Article 34(1) GDPR, and a fine of €316,800 for infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In

regulation of the Guarantor n. 1/2000; RAPPORTEUR prof. Pasquale Stanzione; WHEREAS 1. The inspection activity towards the company. 1.1. As part of a control activity

those involved (Article 12.1, Article 13.1 and 13.2, Article 14.1 and 14.2, Article 5.2, Article 24.1, and Article 25.1 GDPR) 57 II.4.1. Position of the

data from the existing national health data system (as per Article L. 1461-1). Article L. 3131-1 of the public health code stipulates that the Health Minister

pursuant to Article 6 (1) (f) (Article 13 (1) (c)), the company or third parties legitimate interests which make the treatment necessary (Article 13 (1) (d))

§74 B-VG Art133 Para.4 DSG §1 DSG §24 GDPR Art12 GDPR Art14 GDPR Art32 GDPR Art5 GDPR Art57 GDPR Art58 GDPR Art6 GDPR Art77 GDPR Art83 VwGVG §28 paragraph

according to Article 5 (1) point a) of the Data Protection Regulation principle, the purpose-related principle according to Article 5 (1) point b), Article 12 (1)

violates Article 5(1), Article 6(1) and Article 12(1) GDPR. Therefore the DE-HH SA adopted, on 10 May 2021, provisional measures under Article 66(1) GDPR, based

of article 15 of the GDPR. V Classification of the infringement of article 15 of the GDPR The aforementioned infringement of article 15 of the GDPR supposes

personal data enshrined in Article 16 § 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? European Union and Article 8 §1 of the Charter of Fundamental

definition of Article 4(16) GDPR, and therefore declared its competency to act as the lead supervisory authority under Article 56(1) GDPR. The AEPD then

function creep.23 22Guidelines 05/2020, Version 1.1., Adopted on 4 May 2020, para. 46 and 48. 23 Ibid. para. 55. 12Article 5(1)(b) GDPR sets forth the

The Garante ascertained the violation of: 1. Violation of articles 5(1) and (2), 6(1), 7, 24 and 25(1) GDPR, since Fastweb has not proceeded to implement

storage (Article 5.1.b, 5.1.c, 5.1.d and 5.1.e of the GDPR); - Violation of the principle of legality (article 5.1.a of the GDPR); - Violation of Article 10

Violations of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR The DPA held that the controller did not violate Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR. The DPA

according to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR. First, the AEPD established that the GDPR was applicable under Article 3(1) GPDR or, if not, at least Article 3(2)(a) GDPR

EU law provisions of Article 23(1) and (2) GDPR. The court first addresses the dispute as to whether Articles 15(3)(1), 12(5)(1) GDPR constitute an independent

Annex 1. 6.1.2. The Data Controller has notified Vodafone of any change that Annex 1 is required to be made in accordance with this Clause 6. 6.1.3. The

determinacy (Art. 18 B-VG), the GDPR framework legislation (Art. 5, 6, 9, 12 and 23 GDPR), the constitutional provision of § 1 para. 2 GDPR, Art. 7 and 8 CFR, Art

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

there had been breaches of Article 5(1)(a) and (2), Article 13(1)(f) and Article 24 of the Regulation, as explained below. 2.1 Transfers of personal data

the GDPR or General Article 5 (1) (a) and (b) of the Data Protection Regulation, - Article 5 (2) of the GDPR, - Article 6 (1) of the GDPR, - Article 12

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