Search results

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

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

consent under Article 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

such as profiling (see also Article 4(4) GDPR); Restriction (marking for limited further processing, see also Article 4(3) GDPR), such as deactivation of

exercise on their behalf all rights foreseen under Articles 77 and 78 GDPR and Article 20 of L. 4624/2019. The mandate shall be given with a specific written

listed in Article 83(4), (5) and (6) GDPR. This specifically refers to violations of Articles 8, 11, 25 to 39, 41(4), 42, 43 of the GDPR (paragraph 4), Articles

evaluating the effectiveness of security measures (Article 32(1)(d) GDPR). According to Article 4(5) GDPR, "pseudonymisation" means the processing of personal

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

GDPR are Article 4(7) GDPR (definition of controller), Article 4(8) GDPR (definition of processor), Article 4(16) GDPR (definition of main establishment)

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

with the GDPR (Article 31 GDPR). Direct liability of the representative is limited to the obligations set out in Article 30 and Article 58(1)(a) GDPR. Article

(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)

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

meaning of Article 4(7) and (8) GDPR can be liable for compensation. A claim for damages first requires an infringement of the GDPR. Article 82 GDPR does not

paragraph 1 of this Article in the records referred to in Article 30. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 49 GDPR EDPB, ‘Guidelines

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

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

controller (as defined under Article 4(7) GDPR) and a processor (as defined under Article 4(8) GDPR). As noted above, Article 79 GDPR imposes a two-stage cumulative

dispute resolution under Article 65(3)(1) GDPR and for consistency decisions in the urgency procedure under Article 66(4) GDPR is necessary, as these are

incompatible with the office. Article 52(4) GDPR and Article 52(6) GDPR establish the framework for SAs financial governance. Article 52(4) GDPR stipulates that SAs

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

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, p. 888 (Oxford University Press 2020). Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 54 GDPR, margin numbers

and (3) GDPR), inform him or her about the measures taken (Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR), the right to receive this service free of charge (Article 12(5) GDPR)

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

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

shall apply from 25 May 2018. There is no relevant recital for Article 99 GDPR. Article 99 GDPR sets out the dates of the Regulation's entry into force and

performance. Article 7 GDPR regulates the "conditions for consent". It specifies the definition of consent set out in Article 4(11) GDPR and, by integrating

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

requirements. Although Article 40(5) GDPR mentions that the competent DPA will be determined through the application of Article 55 GDPR, the GDPR does not provide

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

Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 25 GDPR, p. 577 (Oxford University Press 2020). EDPB, 'Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection

provisions such as Article 30(4) for the record of processing or Article 40(11) for the register of approved codes of conduct, Article 26 does not explicitly

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

into force of the GDPR. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1073. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023)

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

under the GDPR. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 94 GDPR Kühling, Raab, in Kühling, Buchner, GVO BDSG, Article 94 GDPR, margin numbers

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

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

Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 59 GDPR, margin numbers 4 and 5 (Nomos 2022). Ziebarth, in Sydow, Marsch, DS-GVO/BDSG, Article 59 GDPR, margin number 8 (Nomos

burdens. This reading of Article 31 GDPR is supported by the language of Article 83(4)(a) GDPR which categorises Article 31 GDPR as an 'obligation' of the

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

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

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

Category:Article 67 GDPR See EDPB, State of Play - IMI for GDPR purposes, 27 June 2018 (available here). See EDPB, 2019 Annual Report, Section 4.3.1 (available

62(7) GDPR, the reference to the EDPB is mandatory. The authority addressed under Article 66(1)-(2) GDPR is the CSA within the meaning of Article 4(22) GDPR

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

disclosed to per Article 4(9) GDPR. Article 19 does not establish any specific time requirement for notification. However, since the purpose of Article 19 is to

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

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

Recital 167 GDPR and Article 291 TFEU, the aim of implementing acts is to “ensure uniform conditions for implementing” the GDPR. In its GDPR Certification

decisions in Category:Article 74 GDPR For more on this point, see Article 72 GDPR. Dix in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 74 GDPR, margin number 7 (C

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)

accordance with Article 98'. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 98 GDPR The CJEU has yet to rule on Article 98 GDPR. Nonetheless, 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

a "filing system" within the meaning of Article 4(6) GDPR. See also Article 2(1) GDPR on the scope of the GDPR when it comes to non-automated filing systems

please refer to Article 19 GDPR. If the controller declines to rectify the data, they must provide reasons for their decision (Article 12(4) GDPR). The data

decisions pursuant to Article 65 GDPR (Article 70(1)(t) GDPR). Article 68 GDPR is the first of nine Articles (Articles 68-76 GDPR) governing the EDPB set

64(2) GDPR). The remaining paragraphs of Article 64(3)-(8) GDPR lay down substantive rules and a detailed procedure for the EDPB’s opinions. Article 64(1) GDPR

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

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

from Article 6(1) GDPR and comply with the principles enshrined in Article 5 GDPR. Additionally, the processing will still be subject to other GDPR provisions

objections pursuant to Article 92(5) GDPR. Article 92(5) GDPR imposes a further condition for the delegation of power, in line with Article 290(2)(b) TFEU. A

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

right to data protection. Article 51 GDPR is closely connected to Article 4(21) (definition of SA), Article 52 (independence), Article 53 (General conditions

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

standards of clarity (Article 61(3) GDPR). Requests are imperative and, subject to specific exceptions (Article 61(4) and (5) GDPR), must be fulfilled and

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

subject (Article 12(2) GDPR), respond and communicate the measures taken (Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR), the principle of freedom from costs (Article 12(5)

Member State in relation to damage referred to in Article 62(4) GDPR. According to Article 62(7) GDPR, if the lead SA does not invite the SA to take part

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

simple majority principle under Article 72(1) GDPR would have applied regardless of Article 73(1) GDPR. In addition, the GDPR explicitly legislates for a simple

conduct under Article 83 GDPR should be excluded from penalties issued under Article 84 GDPR is debated. Whilst the wording of the GDPR is simply unclear

meaning Recital 86 GDPR). However, Article 34 GDPR does not provide a specific deadline of 72 hours as is the case in Article 33 GDPR. Instead, timelines

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

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

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

further discussed, in Article 4(1) GDPR. Any information that relates to an identified or identifiable natural person falls under the GDPR, this also includes

exchange of knowledge between them. This way, Article 50 GDPR expands the exhortation under Article 57(1)(g) GDPR that calls for cooperation between EU DPAs

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

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

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

Category:Article 11 GDPR Georgieva, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 11 GDPR, p. 395

are dealt with in Article 12(6) GDPR. It is unclear why Article 12(2) GDPR refers to Articles 15 to 22 GDPR, while Article 11(2) GDPR only refers to Articles

can carry out a notification in phases under Article 33(4) GDPR (see below). Under Article 33(3)(b) GDPR, the supervisory authority must be given the contact

and interpretation as in Article 22(3) GDPR. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 22 GDPR Article 20 of GDPR proposal, COM(2012) 11 final

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

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

of such processing (see Article 5(1)(b) GDPR), the requirement to have a legitimate basis laid down by law (see Article 6(1) GDPR), the right to access and

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

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

lead SA (“LSA”) (Article 65(1)(b) GDPR), and where a SA is not following an opinion of the EDPB (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR). Article 65(1)(a) GDPR addresses the

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

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

which would be competent under Article 55(1) GDPR, as provided in Article 56 GDPR in connection with Article 60 GDPR. For more information see commentary

that purpose. Article 89(4) GDPR makes it clear that the derogations to the GDPR are only available for processing specified in Article 89 GDPR, and not for

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

about the scope of the term 'personal data' under Article 4(1) GDPR. Non-EU citizens can rely on the GDPR as its application is generally independent of nationality

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

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

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

in Category:Article 3 GDPR EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 4 (available here)

refusal to take action on a data subject’s request (Article 12(4)). The first sentence of Article 20(3) GDPR clarifies that the exercise of the right to data

(1) and Article 25 (1) of the GDPR; c. infringement of Article 30(1),(3) and (4) of the GDPR; and d. violation of Article 38(1) and (3) and Article 39 of

of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 56 GDPR. Following the

the fine, the criteria specified in the same article 83. 111. Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20, paragraph III, of the Data Protection

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

of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 56 GDPR. Following the

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.

of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead supervisory authority pursuant to Article 56 GDPR. Following the

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

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, ordered

various GDPR violations (including the principles of legality, transparency and fairness, minimisation and security among others). In total, 4 complaints

of a copy, that "Article 15(1) of the GDPR restricts the right of access to personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the GDPR and additional information

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

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

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

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

Therefore, given that Article 6(1), Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(1)(c), and Article 14 GDPR were infringed in connection to Article 5(1)(b), the

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

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

paragraph 3, all of article 35, and paragraph a) of paragraph 4 of article 83, all GDPR, with a fine of up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of annual turnover

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

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

Decision 26/2021 - 4/4 This interim decision can be appealed within 30 days of its notification registered with the Marktenhof (article 108, § 1, of the

compatible by virtue of a legal provision (see Article 6.4. of the RGPD). Based on the criteria in section 6.4 of the EDR: there is no link between the two

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

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

defendant within the meaning of Article 4 of the GDPR. The defendant is therefore a controller within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR. b. 44 The Senate is convinced

"special categories of data" under Article 9 GDPR. What is the relationship between national laws (like § 151 GewO) and GDPR? Is a prediction of a political

violated Article 30(1) GDPR, as it should have kept more detailed records of processing activities. Data protection impact assessment - Article 35 GDPR The

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

"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

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

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

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

communication service. Therefore, TikTok had to obtain valid consent (Article 4(11) GDPR) from users before using the identifiers. The DPA stated that it should

assessment framework 4.4. The right of access previously laid down in Article 12 of the Privacy Directive 95/46 has now been included in Article 15 of the AVG

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

right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”) of Article 17 GDPR and Article 19 of Regulation 2018/1725. Under GDPR, such prolonged and unrestricted data retention

force: "According to Article 16 sentence 1 GDPR, every data subject has the right to request the controller (see Article 4(7) GDPR) to correct incorrect

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 in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Privacy Ordinance article 58 no. 2. 4.2 Requirements for treatment protocol Pursuant to Article 30 of the Privacy Regulation (and Article 24 of Directive

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

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

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

had a legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR to publish the data subject’s personal data, and did not violate Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. In the decision, the Croatian

definition of the concept of consent in the data protection regulation article 4, No. 11. Article 4 of the Data Protection Regulation, no. 11 states that consent

in Article 23 GDPR. Restrictions on the right to information under Art. 15 GDPR result in particular from the express provision in Art. 15 (4) GDPR that

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SEVENTH: Notification of the aforementioned

all the requirements, so that there is a violation of Article 30(1)(d) of the DSR and Article 30(1)(g) of the DSR. As regards technical and organisational

none of the exceptions in Article 82 of the Data Protection Act were applicable, and Apple had to obtain consent (Article 4(11) GDPR) before using the identifiers

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

states that the party concerned violated Article 83(4)(a) GDPR in conjunction with [Article 32(1) GDPR. Article 32 (1) GDPRby failing, at least with gross

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

35.7 of the GDPR; Under Article 100, §ler, 5° of the LCA, to impose a reprimand for violations of Articles 30.1.a} and 30.1.d} of the GDPR. 6. The Contentious

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

data concerning those other persons. On Article 12(4) GDPR: the defendant was found in breach of Article 12(4) GDPR for not mentioning the possibility to

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

this processing could be based on the Article 6(1)(c) “compliance with a legal obligation” or Article 6(1)(e) GDPR “the performance of a task carried out

to article 4.1 of the RGPD, is a piece of information personal and their protection, is therefore the subject of the said Regulation. In Article 4(2) of

according to Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and to maintain a record of the processing activities under its responsibility according to Article 30(1) GDPR

with Article 30(1) GDPR, despite employing fewer than 250 persons, because of the risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subject (article 30(5) GDPR)

the inspected with section 4 of chapter 4 of the GDPR. 3. […] the inspectorate [is active in the field of transport] […]. 4. The controlled has approximately

principle of proportionality (Article 8(1) CFR, Article 9A Greek Constitution, Recital 64 GDPR), underlined that the GDPR totally respects all fundamental

the GDPR, as the data falls under Article 9 GDPR and awarded € 800 in emotional damages. The Austrian Business Code cannot override Article 9 GDPR. There

follows The appeal is dismissed as unfounded. Legal basis: Article 51(1), Article 57(1)(f) and Article 77(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the basic data protection

companies that use the TC-string? (Article 4(1) GDPR) 2) a) Is IAB a (joint) controller (Article 4(7) GDPR and Article 24(1) GDPR)? b) Does it matter whether

* clause n ° 12 regarding - of article 6 and article 32 / II of the Data Protection Act for all contracts, - of article L.132-1 of the Consumer Code in

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

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 for

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

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

with the principles of article 5 par. 1 GDPR. It is no coincidence that the GDPR includes accountability (see Article 5 para. 2 GDPR) in the regulation of

inform the affected parties as provided for in Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. According to Article 30(1) GDPR a record must be kept by the responsible

with Article 5 (1) (a) and Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR. Thus, the controller failed to comply with the accountability principle under Article 5 (2) GDPR. Second

the rights of the data subject, violated Article 12 of the Decree. Article 15 (4), Article 15 (1) and Article 18 (1) (c) respectively. The Obliged - a

monitor the functioning of decisions adopted on the basis of Article 25(6) or Article 26(4) of Directive 95/46/EC. In its adequacy decisions, the Commission

they are processed (article 5.1 e) of the GDPR). 8.1.4. As for breaches of Articles 5.2. and 24 of the GDPR 88. Article 24.1 of the GDPR which covers Chapter

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

RGPD, and for the violation of article 32 of the RGPD, classified in the article 83.4 of the GDPR. The aforementioned initiation agreement was notified

under Article 35(7) GDPR, for not complying with the principle of transparency under Article 5(1) GDPR and for not anonymising the data under Article 25(1)

to keep a register of processing activities of Article 30 GDPR and storage limitation Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. 6) Digital meters The data subject complains

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

measures provided for in Article 100, §1 of the ACL. Pursuant to Article 108, § 1 ACL, this decision may be appealed within 30 days. days, as of the notification

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

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

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

objection for data processing under Article 21 GDPR and the principle of liability under Article 2(4) GDPR and Article 24 GDPR. The complainant, the data subject

an appropriate level of security, as required by article 32, read in conjunction with article 33 GDPR. The Garante examined the notification by the university

the DPA held that it had violated Article 12(3) GDPR (the controller failed to answer within a month), Article 12(4) GDPR (The controller failed to provide

completely determined by it. This already follows from Article 1.3, Article 20.3 and Article 93.1 No. 4a of the Basic Law. According to these, the commitment

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

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

the same search results on the basis of Article 12 (4) GDPR has been rejected by Google . Article 21 (1) of the GDPR provides that a data subject has the

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

(referred to in Article 9 of the GDPR) or of "personal data relating to criminal convictions and offenses" (referred to in Article 10 of the GDPR)" ( note cit

of Bologna for violation of Articles 5(2)(f) and 9 GDPR. On the basis of Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR, the Garante imposed a fine of € 18 000 on the Local

contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR), nor could be based on legitimate interest of the controller (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Consent (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR) could

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

Questions referred Question 1 Is Article 1(15)(c) of Directive (EU) 2018/843, amending the first subparagraph of Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015/849

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

February 4, 2020) external, unauthorized access from a total of two IP addresses 28 reservations for a total of 30 documents, four times (30 and 31 January

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

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

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

breach of the General Data Protection Regulation5. Article 5 (1) (a), Article 5 (2) and Article 13 Article 1 (1) to (2). III.3. JogkövetkezményekIII.3.1. The

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

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

processing. In accordance with Article 36 GDPR, the Garante must decide on the adequacy of the intended processing under the GDPR. After careful examination

DPO and to cooperate with the DPA, therefore violating Article 31 GDPR and Article 37(1)(a) GDPR. On 2 June 2021, the French DPA (“CNIL”) informed a French

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

the CNIL informing of their plan for compliance. After the CNIL's answer, on 30 March 2021 Google delivered to the CNIL the necessary information showing

meaning of Article 4. The Dispute Resolution Chamber notes that consulting personal data does constitute processing within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the

that regard on that article 2.1) GDPR read in conjunction with recital 15 of the GDPR, although an exclusion from the scope of the GDPR provides for files

obligations under Article 6, §2, al. 5 and Article 9 of the Camera Act 1 2. there is a serious indication that article 6, § 2, al. 4 of the aforementioned

Garante for the protection of personal data, approved by resolution No. 98 of 4/4/2019, published in G.U. No. 106 of 8/5/2019 and in www.gpdp.it, web doc. No

answered in accordance with the requirements of Article 12 GDPR and within the time limit set in Article 12(3) GDPR. As the complainant continued to receive marketing

the different violations described above. The fine was applied pursuant pre-GDPR legislation, owing to the fact that the breaches and the following notification

of rectification of Article 16 GDPR and Article 14 of LOPDGDD, the national data protection law, the DPA stated that Article 12(4) LOPDGDD obliges the

the GDPR sees in Individual provisions stipulate a risk-based approach (e.g. Art. 24 Para. 1 and Para. 2, Art. Article 25(1), Article 30(5), Article 32(1)

1 No. 4 DSG 3) a) Section 52 para. 2 no. 7 DSG 2000 in conjunction with § 69 (5) DSG b) Art. 62 Para. 1 No. 4 DSG 4) a) Section 52 para. 2 no. 4 DSG 2000

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

that the controller had not violated Article 45 GDPR nor any of the subsequent Articles from Chapter V of the GDPR. The AEPD took into account that the

possible. 1 Article 6:2, preamble and under b, in conjunction with Article 7:1, first paragraph, preamble and under f, of the Awb 2 Article 6:12, second

obligation to create a record of processing activities, as required by Article 30(1) GDPR. As a consequence, the CNIL addressed a formal notice to the data

condition of necessity is maintained under Article 6.1 b) to f) of the GDPR. The article 6.1 of the GDPR replaces Article 7 of the Directive, without the relevant

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

processing activities (Article 30 of Regulation 2016/679), procedures regarding reporting data breaches to the supervisory body (Article 33 (3) of Regulation

(definition) Article 4.1: Data subject (definition) Article 4.2: Processing (definition) Article 4.3: Restriction of processing (definition) Article 4.4 : Profiling

according to article 4.1 of the RGPD, is data personal protection and their protection, therefore, is the object of said Regulation. Article 4.2 of the RGPD

assignment, for the activities of DPO, pursuant to Article 19, paragraphs 4 and 10 of Legislative Decree 30 March 2001, n. 165, for a period of three years

Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the GDPR, persons such as [the claimant] can object to the processing of their personal data on the basis of Article 6(1)(e) or

assessment against the GDPR A. Identification of the controllers involved (Article 4.7 GDPR) 24. In accordance with Article 4.7 GDPR, it must be the controller

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

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

data according with Article 16 GDPR as the information was not per se incorrect and thus the first condition under Article 16 GDPR was not met. Given that

the further productions B-30 to B-41 inclusive were received at the Registry of the Court of Appeal by [the appellants]. 1.4 On 2 August 2019 a statement

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

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

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

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

finding under article 15 of the GDR instead of the provisions of article 15 of the GDR. 36, § 4 and § 5 as well as Article 38, § 1 of the Law of 30 July 2018

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

reviewe the security of the data processed by the processor under Article 28(3)(a) and (h) GDPR. For these reasons, the responsibility of the security incident

data on the basis of Article 6.1.e GDPR ? - Did the administration sharing confidential data with a third party violates article 25 GDPR ? - Should the administration

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD typified in Article 83.5.a) of the RGPD and considered very serious, for the purposes of prescription, in Article 72.1

This article was repealed by Ministerial Decree of 18 October 2020, Article 5 of which reads as follows of Article 4 of the Ministerial Decree of 30 June

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

over the right to access Article 15 GDPR. A citizen requested a copy of his personal data from a controller under Article 15 GDPR. The controller requested

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

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

processing of personal data within the meaning of Article 4 GDPR and is it justified on the basis of Article 6 GDPR? Can the controller raise the argument that

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

(hereinafter, LPA- CAP), for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid

Guarantor or to ask to be heard by the Authority (Article 166, paragraphs 6 and 7, of the Code; as well as Article 18, paragraph 1, of Law no. . 689 of 11/24/1981)

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

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

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

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

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

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

inviolable. Article 17, paragraph 1, preamble and under d, of the GDPR therefore does not give the claimant a right to erasure. Article 21 of the GDPR 7. On

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

drones equipped with cameras a personal personal data in the sense of Article 4 GDPR ? Did the Ministry of Interior comply with the French Data Protection

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

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

point 4.7. of the judgment article 6, d) and article 6, e) of the GBA law, but this should be read as article 6.1. d) and Article 6.1. e) of the GDPR. Decision

other things, article 4 paragraph 1 SUWI and the ZBO register of the Dutch central government. See article 2 paragraph 2 SUWI and article 4 paragraph 1 SUWI

particular, the following: 4. The processing of personal data violating the principles and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

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

punishable under Article 83(4)(a) GDPR. Assessing the circumstances that modify the responsibility contemplated in Article 83(2) GDPR, in this case, the

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

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 the

telecommunication act is lex specialis to the general provision on storage in Article 5 (1)(e) GDPR. On June 2, 2020, the DPA decided on the case, which involved TDC

complainant's property. On 30 March 2021, the complaint was dismissed by the Front-line Service of the DPA, on the basis of Article 58 and 60 of the Act of

to ask to be heard by the Authority, within 30 days (Article 166, paragraphs 6 and 7, of the Code, and Article 18, paragraph 1, by Law No. 689 of 24/11/1981)

processing carried out is in violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32 GDPR and Article 35 GDPR. Especially, the controller cannot exclude

to ask to be heard by the Authority, within 30 days (Article 166, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Code, and Article 18, paragraph 1, by Law No. 689 of 24/11/1981)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obligation of the controller (Article 6 (1) (c)) or to perform a public interest task or exercise public authority paragraph (e)). Article 6 (3) of the Data Protection

powers delegated to the Guarantor. Pursuant to Article 78 of the RGPD, Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of Legislative Decree no. 150/2011, an appeal

on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. In particular, the appellant argued that pursuant to Article 6(3) GDPR, a public interest task under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR must

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

provided for by Article 83, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Regulation. 4. ORDER INJUNCTION FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PECUNIARY ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION 4.1. Information

accordance with Article 13(58i2) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 83(1)(a) of the GDPR. 5 of the GDPR, and with Article 21(5) of the GDPR, and with Article

on the basis of Article 9 (2) (B) GDPR in conjunction with Article 32 GDPR" (see note cited, p. 4) (see footnote cit., p. 5-8). 1.6. On 4.8.2020, at the

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

LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On June 30, 2022, the claimed party presented a

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protection of article 11 of Royal Decree-Law 5/2018, once admitted toC / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/30processing the

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

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

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

23Investigation report, page 34, point 4.4.8.1. 24Investigation report, page 34, point 4.4.8.2.1.1 25Investigation report, page 34, point 4.4.8.2.2.1 _______________

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

commercial register by law, this does not mean that these data may be Page 4 4 (4) re-use and disclose for any purpose. Data that can be unrestricted reused

therefore lack the implementation of such adequate safeguards and violate Article 32 GDPR. In this regard, the controller has not received any communications

Protection 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

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

as Article 57 (1) (a), Article 58 (2) (e) and (i), Article 83 (1) - (3) and Article 83 (4) (a) in connection with Article 33 (1) and Article 34 (1), (2)

the existence or absence of a decision in accordance with Article 46, Article 47 or Article 49 (1). in the case of the transmission referred to in the

NIFA08663619 with address in C/ PINTOR SOROLLA 2-4 - 46002 VALENCIA(VALENCIA) In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, the present resolution

future incoming communications" (note cit., p. 6). 1.4. On 10 September 2019, pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 5, of the Code, the Office notified the

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

time tracking system, due to a lack of compatibility with Article 7(4) and Article 35(9) of GDPR. KEO PLC decided to upgrade its ERP system, whose upgrade

violation of Article 7.3 of Organic Law 15/1999, of December 13, of Protection of Personal Data (hereinafter LOPD), typified in the Article 44.4.b) of the

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

pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, of the Regulation, with this measure. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of

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

powers delegated to the Guarantor. Pursuant to Article 78 of the RGPD, Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of Legislative Decree no. 150/2011, this measure

delegated to the Guarantor, 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

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

installing surveillance cameras in public spaces without a lawful basis under Article 6 GDPR. An individual lodged a complaint with the Spanish DPA (AEPD) arguing

space. The DPA found a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR and ordered the controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, to adjust the location of the cameras

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

of his right to rectification, as referred to in Article 16 of the GDPR. 5. Pursuant to Article 12.3 GDPR, the controller must inform the data subject without

"slight" in article 38.4 g), of the aforementioned Law, which may be sanctioned with a fine of up to € 30,000, in accordance with Article 39 of the aforementioned

should have applied Article 35 GDPR. In light of the above, the Italian DPA used its corrective powers under Article 58(2)(c) and 83 GDPR and fined the controller

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

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

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

Criminal Procedure, in particular Article 9 thereof; Having regard to the Highway Code, in particular Article L. 130-9, paragraph 4 thereof; Having regard to Law

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

the meaning of Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR has a right to information from the person responsible within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR with regard to the processed

unclear, cf. the preparations for the act, Prop. 56 LS (2017-2018) points 4.4.7 and 4.5.7. The question has not previously been put to the fore, and there is

[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

within the meaning of Article 4 no. 2 of the GDPR and the term "transfer" within the meaning of Article 44 et seq. of the GDPR. GDPR had to be differentiated

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

fairness and transparency established in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Moreover, the DPA found a violation of Article 13 GDPR, since the controller did not correctly

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

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

NIF B67421867, for a infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, with a a fine of 30,000 euros (thirty thousand euros)

Protection, pursuant to Article 83(3) and Article 83(4)(a) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679, in conjunction with Article 103 of the Personal Data

pay to [the employee] compensation/amount, pursuant to Article 7:683(4) in conjunction with Article 7:682(6) of the Dutch Civil Code, equal to the gross

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

a violation of GDPR Art. 17 and Art. 12(3) & (4). The National Supervisory Authority found that there had been a violation of the GDPR and imposed a fine

April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR), in conjunction with Article 3, Article 4(2) and Article 6(1)(b), all of which are applicable to the

(listed in Article 57 of the GDPR) including that of dealing with complaints (article 57.1.f) of the GDPR) as well as a number of powers (article 58 of the

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

according to Article 4, point 11, as well as the Restrictions according to Article 7 GDPR. (149) According to Article 5 (1) point b) of the GDPR, personal

a san-tion of 30,000 euros (thirty thousand euros), for violation of article 22.2) of the LawLSSI, typified as “slight” in article 38.4.g) of the aforementioned

the processing of personal data of the data subject (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR; Article 6 and Article 8 of the Italian Legislative Decree No. 101 of August

on the basis of the notification, Article 57 (1) f) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 38. § Article 1Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the

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

commensurate with the circumstances of the specific case (Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i) of the Regulation). 4. Injunction order. Pursuant to art. 58, par. 2

of a Commission decision on adequacy , or in Article 46, Article 47 or the second subparagraph of Article 49 (1) (a) the period for which the personal

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

that under Article 82 (1) and (2) GDPR, any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of a violation of the GDPR is entitled

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

Regulation (Article 85) and the Code (Articles 136 et seq.); h) the adoption of suitable measures to eliminate the consequences of the violation (Article 83, paragraph

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

that Cyprus Police was responsible for a violation of Article 32 par.1(b) & (d) and par.(4) GDPR, as a result of the acts and/or omissions of the Police

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unequivocal consent to the processing of his personal data according to Article 4(11) GDPR. The AEPD noted that to determine whether FEDA, having regard to the

unanimously considers that in accordance with Article 17 in in conjunction with Article 21 para. 3 of the GCP and Article 25 para. 1 of the GCP the conditions for

be regarded as the controller within the meaning of Article 4 under 7 GDPR. The legal framework 4.4. [Applicants] argue that Uber has infringed their right

person, using Article 15 as their basis. The Slovenian DPA (IP) was asked for an opinion concerning the scope of GDPR Article 15. Within the GDPR, an individual

necessary according to Article 17(3)(b) GDPR and Article 17(3)(e) GDPR. The controller stated that, according to Chapter 8 Section 1(2)(4) of the Finnish Criminal

the DPA to issue a referral in order to open an ex officio investigation (Article 63(1) of the Law establishing the Belgian DPA). This referral needs to indicate

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

consent by the data subject in accordance with Article 6 juncto Article 7 of the Regulation? 4° Must Article 17.2 of the General Data Protection Regulation

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

directly on the basis of the GDPR, not the register assessed on the basis of Article 30(1) of the GDPR. II.3. Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR 49. Above, the Disputes

has taken place in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 32 (1) (f) and Article 35. Below is a more detailed review

(definition) Article 4.1: Data subject (definition) Article 4.2: Processing (definition) Article 4.3: Restriction of processing (definition) Article 4.4: Profileing

(2), Article 60, Article 101, Article 101a and Article 103 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on personal data protection (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1781) and

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

pursuant to Article 4(2) of the GDPR, and the applicant operating and managing the Facebook page is a controller pursuant to Article 4(7) of the GDPR, given

perpetrator (Article 83(2) GDPR). Lastly, the amount of the fine shall not exceed the maximum amounts provided for in Articles 83(4) (5) and (6) GDPR. The quantification

that a controller is allowed to reject a request to access under Article 12(5)(b) GDPR as "excessive" if the request's sole purpose is to verify the validity

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

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

year 2005-2006, 29 708, no. 19 (p. 523) Article 4:32 The obligation from this article is taken over from Article 52 of the Wfd. Under Section 14(2) of the

genetic, psychic, economic, cultural or social identity "(Article 4, par. 1, 1, of the GDPR). The processing of personal data must also take place in compliance

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

systems of credit information dated March 30, April 22, and May 7, 2021. SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, Protection

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

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

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

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

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

under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is not a valid legal basis for the processing of cookies. The Italian DPA also held that the controller violated Article 122 of

2020 – confirmed the GDPR violations and issued a reprimand to the FPS Finance (pursuant to the Belgian Data Protection Act of 30 July 2018, the DPA is

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

and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and Article 28(1) GDPR. Second, the DPA found that, since the data processing

services did not violate the data subject's right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR when refused to delete information on the data subject's ethnicity,

powers of investigation conferred on the supervisory authorities in Article 57 (1) of the GDPR.Thus, on 31/10/18, an information injunction was sent to the entity

permissible in accordance with Article 133, Paragraph 4, B-VG.The revision is permitted in accordance with Article 133, Paragraph 4, B-VG. text Reasons for the

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

(Articles 83(4) and (5) GDPR) 7.36 The infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR falls within Article 83(5)(a) GDPR, whereas Article 32 falls within Article 83(4)(a)

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

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

"lifting". (4.2) Exclusions (4.2.1) GDPR and AO restrictions 145 According to Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the person concerned (Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR) has a right

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

of which are typified in article 83.4.a). V The violation of articles 32, 33 and 34 of the RGPD are criminalized in Article 83.4(a) of the said GPRS in the

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

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

the alert on the SIS system under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. The reason for the data subject invoking the GDPR is that Article 53(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1861

provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Spanish Agency for Data Protection is competent to perform the functions assigned to it in its article 57, among

Hague October 4, 2022, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2022:2100, para. 3.1-3.13. 4 Conclusion 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Exhibit 4 to the introductory

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

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

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

lit. a GDPR and Article 62.1 no. 4 DPA and Article 52.2 nos. 4 and 7 DPA 2000. The defendant's general assertions, in particular regarding the coverage

Protection, pursuant to Article 83(3) and Article 83(4)(a) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679, in conjunction with Article 103 of the Personal Data

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

the definitions of the legal concepts that the RGPD indicates in article 4: Article 4 GDPR. Definitions For the purposes of this Regulation, the following

in Article 17 GDPR (cf. Article 17 (3) b GDPR). In that case, the data subject does not have the right to object as referred to in Article 21 GDPR, because

amount of the fine under Article 83(2) GDPR. The data subjects complains about the violation of its right of access (Article 15 GDPR) by the Istituto Nazionale

6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/11FOUNDATIONS OF LAWIBy virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each authoritycontrol

criminal proceedings for the alleged violation of Article 32 of the GDPR, as defined in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. FOURTH:Notified of the abovementioned agreement

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

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

the general data protectionArticle 5 (1) (a), Article 5 (2), Article 12 (1) and (4) ofArticle 14, Article 15 and Article 21 (4).1.3. The Authority condemns

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

with article 4.1 of the RGPD. As for the fingerprint, it is also data that must be qualified. two as biometric data and in accordance with article 4.14 of

3.2.3. To an objection by the BF according to Art 21 GDPR According to Article 21 Paragraph 1 GDPR, every person concerned has the right to object at any

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

wearing a protective mask did not consitute personal data according to Article 4(1) GDPR because it was impossible for the average person to identify the individual

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

under this article. " III Article 73 of the LOPDDG indicates: "Violations considered serious "Based on what is established in article 83.4 of Regulation

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

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

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

17(1)(c) GDPR, by its logical and systematic context, also applies to the right to object under Article 21(6) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 21(6) GDPR, where personal

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

claim, a transferred the defendant, in accordance with the provisions of article 65.4 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data

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

paragraph 1a Basic Law Article 5(1), first sentence VIG § 1, § 2, § 3, § 4 para. 4, § 5 para. 1, para. 4 p. 1, § 6 para. 1, para. 3, para. 4 Regulation (EU) 2017/625

accordance with the provisions of Article 37.2 of the LOPD, in the wording given by Article 82 of Law 62/2003, of 30 December, on fiscal, administrative

Secondly, under Article 83 of the GDPR: "1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this article for violations

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

provided for in Article 12.3 of the GDPR, nor informed the claimants of a possible reason for its inaction as required by article 12.4 of the GDPR. It also considers

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

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 decision

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

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

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

according to Article 82 GDPR. The District Court rejected the claim of the data subject. It held that the controller did not violate Article 15(1) GDPR. It found

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

may be recorded of the data processing, in violation of Article 13 and Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR. The complainant lodged a complaint with the AEPD about the

this data breach a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR? The AEPD concluded that there was no violation of Article 32(1) GDPR, because the company had implemented

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

disregarded the provisions of Article 5-1 e) of the GDPR. C. On the breach of the obligation to inform people 65. Article 13 of the GDPR requires the data controller

company "bieNNova" infringed Article 21 LSSI (Ley de Servicios de Sociedad de la Información y de Comercio Electronico). Article 21 establishes that it is

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

etc.). 2.4.1.9. These documents must include all of the information provided for in Article 14 of the GDPR. 2.4.2. Exercise of people’s rights 2.4.2.1. The

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, a warning sanction and for a violation of article 32 of the GDPR, typified

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

under the GDPR and needs to establish a valid legal basis to process personal data. Unsolicited political communication is regulated with Article 11 L. 3471/2006

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

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

pieces also creates aprocessing of personal data within the meaning of Article 4 (2) GDPR.32. However, the Disputes Chamber cannot accept any abuse in this

and the GDPR, in particular with regard to the competence, tasks and powers of data protection authorities ). 4. In article 4 par. 7 of the GDPR, a data

of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection. II The RGPD defines in its article 4: "1)" personal data ": any information about an identified natural person

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

where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section 165 or Article 77 of the GDPR, the Commissioner- (a) fails to take appropriate steps to respond

classified content (index) of the Google search engine. 4. Because according to Article 17 para. 1 of the GDPR, "the data subject has the right to request from

the terms required by article 22.2. ”, which may be sanctioned nothing with a fine of up to € 30,000, in accordance with article 39 of the aforementioned

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

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

amended; Article 82 para 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (Basic Data Protection Regulation - DSGVO), OJ L 207, 30.12.2009, p. 1. No. L 119 of 4.5.2016, p

violation of article 32, paragraph 1, GDPR and article 13, paragraph 1, sub, GDPR BZ should end these violations as soon as possible. article58, paragraph2

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

for indirect determinability: BeckOK Datenschutzrecht Wolff/Brink, DSGVO Article 4 marginal no. 17). Contrary to its obligation as the responsible body, Knuddels

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