Search results

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

requirements of data minimization (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR). Under Article 30(1)(f) GDPR, where possible, the controller

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)

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 5 GDPR, p. 315 (Oxford University Press 2020). Frenzel, in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 5 GDPR, margin numbers

obligation to maintain records of processing activities pursuant to Article 30(5) GDPR] 10. Working Document Setting Forth a Co-Operation Procedure for the

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

(see Article 52 GDPR) and shall be provided with various competencies (Articles 55, 56 GDPR), tasks (Article 57 GDPR) and powers (Article 58 GDPR). For

decisions fines of 30,060,00 euros were imposed Decisions: 67 Opinions: 5 Breach incidents: 175 were announced incidents of breach based GDPR and 35 based on

Category:Article 83 GDPR The wording “infringements of this Regulation” in Article 83(1) GDPR is slightly imprecise. In fact, Article 83(5)(d) GDPR also provides

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

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

processing), Article 57 GDPR (tasks of SAs), Article 58 GDPR (powers of SAs), as well as Article 65 GDPR (dispute resolution by the board), Article 63 GDPR (consistency

(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)

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

rights under the GDPR, when relevant information is provided. Article 13 GDPR embodies the principle of transparency in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, outlining the

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

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

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

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

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

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

from the fact that, according to Article 68(3) GDPR, the Commission is not a member of the EDPB. Secondly, Article 68(5) GDPR explicitly states that the Commission

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

(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)

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

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

under Article 79 GDPR – or both. This flexibility allows for parallel proceedings under both Article 77 GDPR and under Article 79 GDPR. As the GDPR foresees

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)

protection law as enshrined in Article 5 GDPR must be complied with, and that the rights of the data subjects as found in the GDPR must also be available under

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 53 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 53 GDPR, margin

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

protection principles (Article 5), determination of the legal basis for processing (Article 6), implementation of security measures (Article 32), notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles 64(5), 65(5), 64(7) and 64(8) GDPR. Docksey, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 74 GDPR, p. 1099 (Oxford

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

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

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

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

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

to in Article 42(5) and approved by the supervisory authority which is competent pursuant to Article 55 or 56 or by the Board pursuant to Article 63; (c)

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

falls outside the scope of Article 57 GDPR should be deemed inadmissible for the purposes of Article 31 GDPR. Article 31 GDPR can be read as a supporting

Commission (covering Articles 64 to 66 GDPR). For the purposes of the pilot project, the SAs referred to in Article 51 GDPR and the EDPB shall be considered

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

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

States. → See Article 23 GDPR. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 19 GDPR. The obligation to notify under Article 19 should not be

Commentary, Article 38 GDPR, p. 707 (Oxford University Press 2020). Bergt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 38 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

compliance with the GDPR under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR or even ban it under Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. Therefore, complaints under Article 77 GDPR should extend to

with 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

limited to, security of processing (Article 32(1) GDPR) and the general principles of processing set out in Article 5 GDPR. In confirming the above interpretation

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

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) GDPR)

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

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

month to a request for mutual assistance (Article 61(8) GDPR) or to a request of joint operations (Article 62(7) GDPR). On 12 July 2021, the EDPB adopted an

(Articles 42(7) GDPR, 43(5), and 58(2)(h) GDPR). According to the EDPB, where a DPA is to conduct certification pursuant to Article 42(5) GDPR, it will have

BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 36 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck

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

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

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

controller is subject, under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. In line with the general objectives of the GDPR, as outlined in Article 1 GDPR Article 16 TFEU, SAs are also

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

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

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

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 33 GDPR, p. 642-643 (Oxford University Press 2020). According to Bensoussan, the drafting of Article 33 GDPR drew inspiration

pursuant to Article 77 GDPR. Lastly, the NPO may file a legal remedy under Article 79 GDPR against a controller or processor regarding a GDPR infringement

Category:Article 47 GDPR Kuner, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Update of Selected Articles, Article 68 GDPR, p

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

legitimate purpose(s) (Article 5(1)(b)); lawfulness of processing (Article 6); adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary data (Article 5(1)(c)); limited

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

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

administrative order acting in their judicial capacities. The GDPR was adopted pursuant to article 40 of the Act of 1 August 2018 on the organisation of the

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

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

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

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

enforcement of the GDPR. For more information regarding the establishment of SAs, please refer to Article 51(1) GDPR and Article 52 GDPR in this Commentary

the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available here). EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’

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

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

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

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

implementation of Article 5(3) ePD. § 25(1) TTDSG mandates that information (notably also information that is not considered personal data under the GDPR) may only

mandated by Article 30(1) GDPR. In conclusion, the DSB confirmed that the controller had violated Articles 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c), 6 and 30 GDPR. Taking into

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

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

algorithms were undertaken in lack of a proper legal basis,in violation of Article 5 and 6 GDPR. Concerning specifically data of people other than the users, namely

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

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.

22(24) Date: 2023-06-30 According to article 83.5 c of the data protection regulation, in the event of a violation of among article 44 in accordance with

question if Google LLC violated Articles 5 et seqq. GDPR in connection with Article 28(3)(a) and Article 29 GDPR. The DSB fully upheld the complaint with

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,

with the DPA and what language the DPA used to communicate with them. As Article 30 of the Belgian Constitution provides for "linguistic liberty", the complainant

processor's accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR? Did the data processor under question violate Article 5(1) and 5(2) GDPR? Does the existence of a basis

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

minimisation obligation pursuant to Article 5 of the GDPR and the data protection obligations pursuant to Article 25 of the GDPR. The Federal Administrative Court

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

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

infringements of Article 5.1.c) and Article 6.1 AVG. In particular, the Disputes Chamber found that relevant that: - the infringed Article 5.1.c) AVG contains

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

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

referred to as LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1(f) of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Having been notified of the

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

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

entitled to erasure under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, as the data processing was not lawful. In any case, the requirements of Article 6 GDPR were no longer met 6

"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

been taken up again at Article 5.1(b) of the GDPR under the Principles for the Processing of Personal Data (Chapter II). 16. Article 5.1(b) of the GDMP provides

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

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

for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. The AEPD considered that the fine was proportional, since the GDPR establishes that fines

in particular of children was in breach of Article 5, Article 6, Article 8, Article 9, and Article 25 GDPR. Consequently, the DPA urgently imposed upon

This interim decision can be appealed within 30 days of its notification registered with the Marktenhof (article 108, § 1, of the law of 3 December 2017 establishing

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 gives

obligations relating to cookies 53. According to Article 82 of the Data Protection Act, transposing Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive, "any subscriber

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

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

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

provisions of the article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, so they involve the commission of an infraction classified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, which provides the

fail to adhere to the data transparency (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR) and the data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) principles? Was the defendant required to

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

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

decision. The DPA found that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(e) GDPR and Article 35(1) GDPR. (a) The DPA found that the controller had breached the

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

conformity with Article 5.1. c), Article 6.1., Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. e) and Article 13.2. a) of the DGPS pursuant to Article 101 of

LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 and 13 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: The database of this organization

conjunction with Article 56(5), read in conjunction with Article 56(6), read in conjunction with Article 56(7), read in conjunction with Article 56(8). in conjunction

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

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 process

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

this processing, in violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR; It violated Article 13(1) and (1) GDPR, and Article 5(1) GDPR by failing to adequately inform data

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

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

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

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 on

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

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

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

two-months period to comply with the GDPR. The controller had two months to comply with Articles 5(1)(c), 13, 28, 30(1) and 32 GDPR. In its latest order, the CNIL

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

against the respondent, by the alleged violation of Article 5.1(c) of the GPRS, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. In view of all that has been done,

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

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

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)

implementation and specify and supplement the GDPR. § 3(1) mentioned in this case corresponds to Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. In Denmark, the

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

violation of Article 6 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, and classified as very serious for the purposes of prescription in article 72.1.b)

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

coming into force of the GDPR on 25. 5. 2018. Can a controller charge for access to historic account data under Article 15 GDPR? Is GDPR applicable to a case

fine, the criteria specified in the same Article 83." 112. Under Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20(III) of the Data Protection Act: "1

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

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

all contracts; * clause n ° 5 regarding - of article 6/1 °, 2 ° & 3 ° of the Data Protection Act for all contracts, - Article 32 / I of the Data Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

party on March 30, 2022, the facts are prescribed in regarding the violation of article 32 of the GDPR. On the other hand, article 83.5, section a) of

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

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

infringement of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. After recalling that each concerned DPA could submit a request for mutual assistance under Article 61 GDPR and thereby

rights of freedom of opinion and freedom of the press under Article 5.1 of the Basic Law and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The significance

treatment as of June 30, 2019. 18. On September 20, 2019, the President of the Litigation Chamber shall decide, pursuant to Article 98 of the the ACL that

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

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

volition investigation into CP&A's compliance with Article 9, as well as Article 32 GDPR. Since Article 9 GDPR prohibits the processing of special categories

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

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)

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

Authority 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

data processing (Article 5.1. c) GDPR) has not been complied with. 24. In order to verify whether the third condition of Article 6.1, f) GDPR - the so-called

analyzes the criteria by Article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As to the nature and seriousness of the violation [article 83.2 a) of the GDPR], with regard to breaches

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

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

the request. Furthermore, the DPA noted that pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR and Article 24 GDPR, the controller should be able to demonstrate its compliance

set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation

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

internal data protection rules. Article 25 of the GDPR specifies the general obligations set out in Article 24: in this Article the principle of regulated built-in

data within 30 days, based on Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and Article 95 §1,5 WOG. The DPA also held that the controller had notify the DPA within 30 days about

DPA under Article 100 § 1, 6, 10 and 12 of the LCA. The complainant y also denounces a breach of Article 5.1. c) and Article 5.1. e) of the GDPR. 18. The

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

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

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

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

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

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

data subject under Articles 17 (1) GDPR and 21 (1) GDPR can submit , also given the provisions of Article 12 (5) GDPR ? 5. Does it make any difference to

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

measures aimed at strengthening the security of the processing. Under Article 36(5) GDPR, the Italian Ministry of Health has submitted the Data Protection

pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 5, of the Code, of the initiation of the procedure for the adoption of the measures referred to in Article 58, paragraph

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

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

within the meaning of Article 30(9) Directive 2015/849, as amended. In Case C‑601/20, Sovim lodged a request to LBR, pursuant to Article 15 Law of 13 January

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

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

under Article 5 of the GDPR, namely data minimisation and data economy, and a defective balancing of interests within the framework of Article 5 of the

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

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

confidentiality of personal data (Article 5 (1) (f) of Regulation 2016/679) or rules for limiting data storage (Article 5 (1) (e) of Regulation 2016/679)

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

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 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

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

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

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

merits in accordance with Article 98 et seq. of the WOG, to: - on the basis of Article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of the WOG the order the

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

right 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

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

montant de 10.000 € (article 83, paragraphe 2, de l'AVG ; article 100, §1, 13° WOG et article 101 WOG). 129. Compte tenu de l'article 83 AVG et de la jurisprudence17

(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

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

Acts, only in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation 2016/679. In turn, in accordance with Article 30a of the Act of 14 December

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

filmed by the owner of the location. Principles in Article 5(1)(a) and (c) and Article 6(1)(f) GDPR are therefore violated. In addition there were violations

principles of minimization and purpose limitation (Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR): The Belgian DPA considers that the indication of the

(pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 5, of the Code), communicating the initiation of the procedure for the adoption of the measures referred to in Article 58, paragraph

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

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

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

municipality €5,000 for failing to designate a DPO and to cooperate with the DPA, therefore violating Article 31 GDPR and Article 37(1)(a) GDPR. On 2 June

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

fine are set out in Article 83 of the General Data Protection Regulation. contained in Article. In the event of a breach of Article 5 of the General Data

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

with the 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

required by article 6 of the RGPD. The data processing carried out violates article 6 of the RGPD conduct that is subsumed in article 83.5 of the RGPD

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

(provision no. 508 of 30 December 2011, provision no. 364 of 10 July 2014 and provision no. 28 of February 6, 2020 cited; Court of Rome March 5, 2019, no. 5071);

Articles 5.1.b) and 5.1.c) of the GDPR pursuant to Article 95, §1, 3° of the LCA; - pursuant to Article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of the

para. of the GDPR, the law or regulation that constitutes the legal basis referred to in letters c) and e) of co. 1 of art. 6 of the GDPR, could contain

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

data collected and (5) without having adopted appropriate security measures, in violation of Articles 5, 12, 13, 25, 28 and 32 GDPR. The GPDP held that

real estate company Deutsche Wohnen SE € 14.5 million for violation of Article 5(1)(e) and Article 25(1) GDPR as the company's archive system was structurally

accordance with Article 38.3 of the AVG 5. On 5 October 2021, the Disputes Chamber decided on the basis of article 95, §1, 1°and article 98 of the CPC that

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

of minimum data processing (Article 5.1. c) GDPR). 33. In order to check whether the third condition of Article 6.1 f) GDPR - the so-called "Balancing test"

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

accuracy of the data processed (Article 5, paragraph 1, letter d) of the Regulation), nor in terms of safety and integrity (Article 5, paragraph 1, letter f) of

infraction of art. 5.1.d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016, typified in art. 83.5 of the aforementioned

processing operations should not be disproportionate.5 disproportionate.5 16. Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR provides that personal data must be be "collected

is established in article 6 of the GDPR, for which they suppose the commission of an offense classified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, which gives rise to

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)

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

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

be given. 1.5 Further documents from [appellants] were received at the Registry of the Court on 18 December 2019, 23 December 2019 and 30 December 2019

with 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

contemplates in its article 76, entitled “San- corrective measures and actions ”: "1. The sanctions provided for in sections 4, 5 and 6 of article 83 of the Regulation

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

was contrary to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR (principle of lawfulness), Article 5(1)(b) GDPR (principle of purpose limitation) and Article 6 GDPR (absence of valid

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

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

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

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

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

the processing is thus in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 (c) and Article 5 (1). Paragraph 1 (e), where processing and

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

agreements Article 12 (1) of the GDPR 17 IV.5. Legal consequences (72) The Authority finds that the Client has infringed Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR, Article 6 Article

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

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

the proceedings, pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 5, of the Code, for the adoption of the measures referred to in Article 58, paragraph 2, of the Regulation

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

breach of Article 6 GDPR, in that the processing was not necessary for its legal obligation. In addition, the chamber found a breach of Article 5 GDPR, in that

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

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

the criminal sanction referred to in Article 170 of the Code and the administrative fine provided for in Article 83(5)(e) of the Regulation shall apply;

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.

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

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

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

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

B02547164, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 GDPR, a fine of FIVE THOUSAND EUROS (€ 5,000.00). SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

management of the signed contract ”.On 11/30/2018, in accordance with the provisions of article 9.5 of the RealDecree-Law 5/2018, the acceptance agreement for

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

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

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

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

therefore held that the controller violated Article 5(f) (principles of integrity and confidentiality) and Article 9 by communicating personal data, including

pursuant to Article 100, §1, 5° WOG, to order a disqualification for the violation of Article 5.1, a), Article 5.2, Article 6, Article 12.1, Article 14.1 a)

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

controls, has a date (21.5.2018) subsequent to the date on which the complainant's computer was accessed (16.5.2018) (note 1.3.2019, p. 4-5). 1.4. On 17 May 2019

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

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

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)

purpose thus breaching the principles of data minimization under article 5 (1) (c) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The

in the plublic interest, under the data minimisation principle and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. A citizen requested the deletion of their personal data into the

administrative sanction provided for in Article 83, paragraph 5, of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation

of the Italian Privacy Code (d. lgs. 30 giugno 2003, n. 196). Article 122 is a direct transposition of Article 5(3) of the Directive. The violation of

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

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

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

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

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

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

captures activities of employees without their knowledge compliant with Article 5 GDPR? The DPA concluded that the video surveillance system introduced by

authority, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 47 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on Personal Data Protection and Guarantee of Digital

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

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

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

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

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

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

pursuant to the Article 17(3)(b) of the GDPR. However, Statistics Denmark has been criticised for not complying with the Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR, namely,

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

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

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

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

paragraph 5, of the Code, the notification to the company of the alleged violations of the Regulation found, with reference to Articles 5, par. 1, lett

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

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

electoral rolls. In accordance with Article 14(5)(c) AVG, information must be provided in Article 14, paragraph 1 and Article 14(2) AVG are not mentioned when

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 the

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

and violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. It also did not process personal data with an appropriate level of security, as required by Article 32 GDPR. The company

processing 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

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

DPA 5. The General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter: the GDPR) applies on 25 May 2018 become. The GDPR imposes the same obligation in Article 32

Articles 5, paragraph 1, letter a), c) and e), 12, 13, 15 of the Regulation, the outcome of the proceedings referred to in Article 166, paragraph 5 conducted

A78923125, for an infringement of Article 58 (2) of the GDPR, as set out in Article 83 (5) (e) of the GDPR, a fine of EUR 30.000,00 (thirty thousand euros)

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

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

in the management of patients’ personal data and severe violations of the GDPR. The DPA recognised the efforts that the hospital is planning to put to improve

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 of Personal Data andguarantee

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)

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

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)

Giessegi violated Articles 5(1)(a) and 13 GDPR, as it did not provide the data subject with a proper privacy policy. Article 28 GDPR was also infringed, as

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

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

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

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

compelling reasons within the meaning of Article 9 of the protocol on monitoring systems. That article reads as follows: "Article 9 Articles 05 to 08 do not affect

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

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

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

refuse is insufficient. 5.5. The merits of the appeal to the extent directed against the GBA - the violation of article 12.3 GDPR. 5.5.1. The Bank X further

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

(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

controller's disclosure to the private expert resulted in a breach of the GDPR. However, on 5 September 2022, the DPA dismissed the complaint because it concerned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

five thousand euros (5,000.00) euros, for the above violations of article 17 in combination with article 21 par. 3 of the GCP and article 25 par. 1 of the

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

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

cf. Article 5, and that they didn't have any legal grounds for this processing as per Article 6, cf. Article 5 (the latter because the information was confidential

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

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

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

***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 Regulation

identity "(Article 4, par. 1, 1, of the GDPR). The processing of personal data must also take place in compliance with the principles indicated in art. 5 of the

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

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

defendant on the basis of Article 100.1, 5 ° LCA given the breach noted in Article 6 of the GDPR combined with Article 5.1.a) of GDPR; - To dismiss the remainder

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

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”

appeal is brief, it contains a ground as referred to in Article 6: 5, read in conjunction with Article 6:24 of the General Administrative Law Act. The appeal

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

provisions of article 9 of the GDPR, which implies the commission of an infringement classified in section 5.a) of the Article 83 of the GDPR. Article 83.5.a) of

held, in its communications with the complainants, that Article 6(5) of Attachment 5, and not Article 6(2) – providing for a shorter retention period of 24

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

(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)

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

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

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

subject’s right to access under Article 15 GDPR, and thus also a breach of the principle of openness pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Datatilsynet stressed that

Netherlands Relevant Law: Article 12(2) GDPR Article 12(5) GDPR Article 15 GDPR Type: Investigation Outcome: Violation Found Started: Decided: 30.07.2019 Published:

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.aepd

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

[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

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

€150,000 on Xfera Móviles S.A. (defendant) for infringing Article 17, 32, 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 21 LSSI. The fine was imposed after investigating two complaints

controller processed personal data in violation with the provisions of Article 5(1)(a-d)GDPR (the principles of: lawfulness, fairness and transparency; purpose

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

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

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

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

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

public interest in accordance with national law. It follows from Article 5(1)(b) GDPR that further processing for archival purposes in the public interest

breach of the obligations of Article L. 34-5 of the Postal and Electronic Communications Code 11. According to article L. 34-5 of the CPCE: " Direct prospecting

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

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

resulting from Article L. 34-5 of the CPCE and Article 7-1 of the GDPR. B. On the breaches relating to the exercise of rights 27. According to Article 12 of the

(infringement of Article 24 and 5.2 GDPR)Second vemreermiddel: the request of the complainant 's request for erasure in themeaning of Article 17 GDPR; third party

principles of legality, transparency and security under Article 5(1)(a) and (f) GDPR, and Article 32(1)(2) GDPR, as well as failure to satisfy the right of access

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

design and default. The CNIL ordered the Ministry to comply with Article 24 and 25 GDPR regarding the collection and further processing of personal data

protected by article 5 par. 1 item a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR. 12. Because, since a lack of compliance with the provisions of article 5 par.

Moreover, the information provided as per Article 13 GDPR were not compliant with the requirements of Article 12 GDPR in light of the fact that TikTok services

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

integrity and confidentiality when processing personal data according to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD confirmed that there was no Facebook profile with the name

purpose limitation in accordance with Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter b GDPR (Paal/Pauly/Paal, 3rd edition 2021, GDPR Article 15 Rn. 24). The plaintiff has a right

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

lawfulness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a), 6 and 9 GDPR) as well as its obligations under Article 12, 14, 15 and 27 GDPR. The DPA fined the controller

more personal data than strictly necessary within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR. The FPS Finance therefore does not comply with the data minimization

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

BKR 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

conferred on each individual by Article 58(2) of the GPRS, the authority, and in accordance with Article 47 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, Protection of

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

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

right of access under Article 15 of the GDPR and the right to erasure (‘forgotten’) under Article 17 of the GDPR, Article 12 of the GDPR on measures to exercise

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

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

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

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

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

under the GDPR and the controller could not comply with its obligation under Article 19 GDPR. For this reason, the court held that the GDPR violation did

timetable" "B.- In accordance with Article 67 of the GDPR, the Inspectorate of the AEPD, in accordance with Article E/0113/2019, carried out the following

frame necessary about the outcome of a request to have data erased under GDPR Article 17. The National Supervisory Authority conducted an investigation into

time limit for payment is until 5 of the second next or immediate working month. Pursuant to Article 82 of Law 62/2003 of 30 December on¬ tax, administrative

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

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

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

the GDPR, [applicants] suffered immaterial damage estimated at € 750 per applicant. Uber must compensate for that damage under Article 82 GDPR. 3.5. Uber

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

subject relied on the GDPR to anonymise and redact deeds which were key to the proceedings, on the basis of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR (data minimisation). In

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

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

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

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

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

with the terms of the decree of 29 May 2020, pursuant to Article 5-1-a) of the RGPD. Article 5(1)(a) of the Regulation stipulates that: personal data must

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

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

for in Article 13, paragraph 5 of the DSG and Article 50d, paragraph 1 of the DSG 2000 violates Article 13, paragraph 5 in conjunction with Article 62, paragraph

Paal in Paal/Pauly, DSGVO/BDSG , Article 15 paragraph 33; Schaffland/Holthaus in Schaffland/Wiltfang, GDPR, Article 15 GDPR paragraph 44; loc. A. Härting

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

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

the company would have breach the data minimisation principle from Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. With regard to the union's demand to provide a list of the workers'

against the defendant, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: On 06/02/20, this Agency received

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

purposes in Article 73, sections j), k) and p) of the LOPDGDD, for violation of article 44 of the RGPD typified in accordance with article 83.5.c) of the

violation of article 5.1.c), typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned rule, a sanction of APPEARANCE. SECOND: ORDER, under the provisions of article 58.2

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

57(1)(a) and Article 58(2)(b) in connection with Article 5(1)(f), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1) and (2) of 2 of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European

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

information [...]". 5. Because according to the above article 17 of the GDPR, as it has been interpreted according to the content of the Guidelines 5/2019 of the

banned from the game. On 30 May 2019, the data subject filed an access request at the controller pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. It is not clear from the

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

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

this regard within the meaning of Article 2 (2) point d) GDPR. Whichcertain officials of the defendant under Article 5, §2 of the Second Ordinanceare appointed

processed" (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR). The Finish DPA ruled that the controller did not comply with the principle of data minimization set out in Article 5(1)(c)

violated 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

interpretation of Article 55(3) GDPR would not cover this as judicial activity. Therefore, the complaint is not admissible in accordance with Article 130 Paragraph

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

request because the processing was necessary according to Article 17(3)(b) GDPR and Article 17(3)(e) GDPR. The controller stated that, according to Chapter 8

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

infringements of article 6.1 and 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (Regulation General Data Protection, hereinafter RGPD) typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned

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

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)

National Defense violated the principle of dataminimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. It reasoned that the Type A Certificate's general purpose is to

accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/5 the fourth additional provision

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:

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)

information obligation provided for a / 'article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR. (...) Pursuant to article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR, the responsibility for processing

violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/5 FOURTH: On

opening clause in Article 86 GDPR if the disclosure involves personal data? The court held that the VIG complies with Article 86 GDPR: The provisions of

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

and the Council in the context of Article 31, Article 58(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 83(1) to (3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679 of the

Klarna violate Article 15 of the GDPR? The DPA considered that Klarna failed to process the request within the timeframe required by Article 12(3) and without

( *** 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

meaning of Article 5.1.c. AVG). 13. The transcript of the hearing is subsequently transmitted to the parties on 28 June 2023; in accordance with Article 54 of

principles of purpose limitation and data minimization under Article 5(1)(b) and (c) GDPR. A request of civic access was presented to the Udine City Council

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

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

fine of €6,000 imposed for violation of Article 32 GDPR and a fine of €5,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Additionally instructed the erasure

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

including Article 129 WEC which implements Article 5.3 of Directive 2002/5815 (hereinafter, "ePrivacy Directive"), in accordance with Article 14 § 1 of

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