Search results

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

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

(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)

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

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

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 35, para. 1. Below

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

to the data. The infringement of Article 32 of the GDPR led to a €10,000 fine (RON 48,748). The infringement of Article 3 of Law 506/2004 led to a fine

least one of the conditions set out in Article 6(1) GDPR? On the topic of non-material damages 4) Does Article 82(1) GDPR have a specific or general preventive

required under the GDPR (e.g. from a security perspective under Article 32 GDPR or as a means of data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) can get confused

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

(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

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

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

fined € 11.000 Fan Courrier Express SRL for violations of f Article 32 paragraphs (1) and (2) GDPR. The controller Fan Courrier Express SRL was sanctioned

constituted a data breach and were therefore a violation of Article 32(1), and additionally Article 5(1)(f) for violating the confidentiality principle. The AEPD

Finnish DPA found a healthcare provider to have breached Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR for not implementing appropriate technical and organisational

Jurisdiction: Croatia Relevant Law: Article 32(1)(b) GDPR Article 32(1)(d) GDPR Article 32(2) GDPR Article 32(4) GDPR Type: Complaint Outcome: Upheld Started:

level of security appropriate to the risk of processing according to Article 32(1) GDPR? The ANSPDCP found that the controller did not implement adequate

Commissioner held that CYTA violated articles 5 (1), 24 (1) and (2), 25 (1) and (2) and 32 of the GDPR and instructed CYTA to establish such security measures

regarding the security of processing, respectively art. 32 para. (4) in conjunction with art. 32 para. (1) and para. (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation

Norge violated Article 33 GDPR by failing to notify the Datatilsynet of the data breach? Had Telenor Norge violated Article 32(1) GDPR by failing to implement

that the controller had breached its obligations under Articles 5(1)(f), as well as 32(1) and (2). As a consequence, the ANSPDCP issued an administrative

there was a personal data breach pursuant to Article 4(12) GDPR. Moreover, it stated that Article 32(1) GDPR obliges controllers to take appropriate technical

reason, claimed that she shall receive the medical report under the veil of GDPR. The Cypriot Office of the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection disagreed

concluded that the controller violated Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(d), Article 32(2), and Article 32(4) GDPR. Therefore, the DPA decided to impose a

garden. The decision found that the HSE infringed Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1) of the GDPR by failing to implement appropriate technical and organisational

in accordance with the rules in the Data Protection Regulation [1], Article 32 (1). 1. Below is a more detailed review of the case and a justification

activities further violated Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR. Accordingly, the DPA, in accordance with its powers under Article 58 (2) GDPR, imposed an administrative

provisions of Article 32 paragraph (4) in conjunction with Article 32 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the GDPR, as well as of Article 33 paragraph (1) of the

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

Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) fined leasing company €15,000 for violation of Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR after investigating a data breach reported by the company, where

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

€283,000). It held that the controller violated Articles 25(1), 32(1)(b), 32(1)(d) and 32(2) GDPR by not taking appropriate technical and organizational security

violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and proved the ineffectivness of the controller's employee compliance training, in violation of Article 32 GDPR. The DPA

SE Register Center 15 thousand. A fine of EUR 1 million was imposed for infringements of Article 32 (1) (b) and (c) of the BDAR, ie failure to ensure

6 November 2020, has processed personal data in violation of Article 32(1) 1 of the GDPR by sending sensitive personal data to the complainant in an e-mail

infringement of article 32.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the RGPD, a fine of € 3,000 (three thousand euros), in accordance with article 73.g) of

assessed if it ensured an appropriate level of security under Articles 32(1) and 32(2) GDPR. The DPA held that the controller did not make a proper risk assessment

data. Hence, it considered Article 32(1)(a), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(d) GDPR to be breached. Pursuant to Article 82(2) GDPR, the DPA took several aggravating

organizational measures when processing personal data, as requested by Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR. This implied a risk for the security of the personal data of

implement sufficient security measures, in breach of Articles 32 (1) b), d) and 32 (2) GDPR. NN Pensii Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat

accomodation via its web form and via e-mail, acting contrary to Article 13(1) GDPR and Article 13(2) GDPR. Further, the AZOP held that the controller failed to adopt

administrative bodies, researchers and physicians in violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. Uppsala regional authorities notified the Swedish DPA (Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten

data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. Article 32 of the RGPD "Security of treatment", establishes that: "1. Taking into account the state

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

judicial remedy against the controller under Article 79(1) GDPR. Having said that, Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR make it clear that national courts must assess

personal data did not comply with the rules of Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 (f) and Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. First

certain level of security. Therefore, they did not find a violation of Article 32(1) and decided not to fine the controller. Share your comments here! Share

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

implemented sufficient technical and organisational measures pursuant to Article 32 GDPR in relation to the leakage of pupils personal data to third-parties

could not be considered appropriate in accordance with Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR regarding the online appointment booking system. As a result

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

of for shredding. 4.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation Pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, the data controller

address. The Romanian DPA found a violation of Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(2) and Article 32(4) of the GDPR and fined SC Medicover SRL €2,000. Share your

violation of Article 32 GDPR, the "Security of processing". More specifically, the controller violated Article 32(1)(b), 32(2), and 32(4) GDPR. For its breaches

violating Article 32 GDPR. The DPA took also the corrective measure to order the operator to bring its processing operations into compliance with the GDPR according

breach of Article 32? The DPA concluded that the municipality had breached the required information security requirements as per Article 32(1)(b), cf. Article

subsequent violations of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and of the principle of accountability as foreseen in Article 5(2) GDPR read in conjunction

the rules on e.g. data protection. It follows from Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, that data controllers and data processors, taking

data. Hence, the controller violated Articles 32(1)(b) and 32(2) GDPR. Pursuant to its Article 58(2) GDPR statutory powers, the DPA ordered the controller

of approximately €150,000 (1,600,000 SEK) on the University Hospital Board for the violation of Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1) GDPR. The data breach notification

would have been required by Article 29 GDPR. Moreover, in violation of Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(2), and Article 34(4) GDPR, the controller had not implemented

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

Online Levante, S.L.: for the infringement of Article 5(1)(f), €2,000. for the infringement of Article 32(1), €1,000. Share your comments here! Share blogs

Asesoria Alpi Clua: for the infringement of Article 5(1)(f), €2,000. for the infringement of Article 32(1), €1,000. Share your comments here! Share blogs

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

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

the combined provisions of article 32, paragraph 1, subparagraphs b) and d) and article 83, paragraph 4, al.a), of the GDPR, with a fine of € 0.00 to €

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

for infringement of Article 32 (1) lit. a DSGVO [German Penal Code]. (Storage of unhashed passwords) here: Fine notice Enclosure: 1 transfer form, cash

life and health. 5.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, that the data controller

(possible) fraud. This resulted in a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 8 of the Dutch Personal Data Protection

considered appropriate in accordance with Article 31(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to identify

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

A., with NIF A28157360, for a violation of article 32.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4, a) of the GDPR, with a fine of €40,000 (forty thousand euros)

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

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

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

processing special categories of data, cf. Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d), Article 24 and Article 35, cf. Article 5. In May 2019, a municipality reported

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

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

expressed in Article 5 (1 ) (a)) f, and reflected in the obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1), Article 32 (1 ) (b ) and (d) and Article 32 (2)

provisions of Regulation art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32 sec. 1 and 2. In addition, by letters of

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

with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 33 paragraph. 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 of the Regulation

regard to Client 1 that data management - infringed Article 25 (1) to (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation, - infringed Article 32 (1) (b) of the General

5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 5 sec. 2, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. b, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 38 sec. 1, art. 39 sec. 1 lit. b and

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

failed to comply with the requirements of Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR. In particular: 6.12.1 Article 32(1)(b) GDPR required Ticketmaster to ensure the ongoing

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

measures when recording group sessions in violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32(1) GDPR. The controller is Men Overcoming Violence Ireland ("MOVE")

DPA found no violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. The elements that the DPA took into account to exclude the existence of a GDPR infringement were the following

The Danish DPA found that the Høje-Taastrup Municipality violated Article 32(1) GDPR because it did not have guidelines or objective criteria in place

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

wall. The DPA held that the controller violated Article 32(1) GDPR. The obligation under Article 32(1) GDPR to implement appropriate technical and organisational

This amounted to a violation of Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d) GDPR, Article 32(2) GDPR. Consequently, the DPA fined the

Romanian DPA found that the controller had violated Articles 32(1)(b), 32(1)(d) and 32(2) GDPR, as they had failed to implement adequate technical and organisational

implement appropriate technical and organisational measures pursuant to Article 32(1) GDPR applies equally to controllers and processors. As the Controller identified

in Article 5 GDPR. One of these principles is the requirement of security under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR (‘integrity and confidentiality’). Article 32 GDPR

encryption or pseudonymisation. As a result, it found a violation of Article 32(1) and 32(2) GDPR and imposed a fine of RON19,646 (approximately Є4,000). Share

investigation. The DPA found that the controller had violated Article 32(1)(b), (d) and 32(2) GDPR because they had not implemented adequate technical and organizational

data of its current and former employees, in violation of Articles 32(1), (2) and (4) GDPR. A data subject filed a claim before the Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP)

security. The DPA therefore held that the controller violated Article 32(1)(b), (c) and 32(2) GDPR. The DPA fined the controller approximately €5,000 (24,566

violations of Articles 32(1)(b) and 32(1)(d) GDPR, as well as a breach of Article 4(5) of Law 506/2004. In regards to Article 32 GDPR, the DPA found that

infringements of Article 32(1) and Article 33(1). * The DPC ordered Tusla to bring its processing operations into compliance with Article 32(1) of the GDPR by implementing

not taken place in accordance with the rules in Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation [1]. 1. Below is a more detailed review of the case and

reprimanded Nottinghamshire County Council under Article 58(2)(b) (UK) GDPR, for infringing Article 32(1) (UK) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or

fined a teaching council €60,000 for violations of Articles 5(1)(f), 32(1) and 33(1) GDPR by failing to notify a data breach in due time, and lacking appropriate

laid down in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In this context, the DPA referred to Article 25(1) GDPR (data protection by design) and Recital 78 GDPR. As a result

Meta Platforms complied with the requirements of Articles 5(1)(f), 5(2), 24(1) and 32(1) GDPR in relation to the processing of personal data relevant to

measures. The DPA therefore held that the controller violated Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR and fined the controller €20,000. The Romanian DPA only publishes

relatively high. 4.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from the data protection regulation article 32, subsection 1, that the data controller

with the rules in the data protection regulation[1] article 32, subsection 1 and Article 33, subsection 1. Below follows a closer review of the case and

by UCD infringe Articles 5(1)(f)- 5(1)(e) and 33(1) GDPR? The DPC held that UCD infringed: - Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1) GDPR by failing to process personal

municipalities has not complied with Article 28 (1) of the Data Protection Ordinance. Article 32 (3) (f), in accordance with Article 32, as the company has not implemented

Jurisdiction: Hungary Relevant Law: Article 32(1)(a) GDPR Article 32(1)(b) GDPR Article 32(2) GDPR Article 33(1) GDPR Article 34(1) GDPR Type: Investigation Outcome:

regulation, article 4, no. 12. 3.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from the data protection regulation article 32, subsection 1, that

enough level of protection pursuant to Article 32(1) GDPR, the data subject claimed damages pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR. The controller argued to the contrary

not taken place in accordance with the rules in Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1. [1] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

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

to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Secondly, the technical and organisational measures taken to ensure security of processing pursuant to Article 32(1) GDPR. Thirdly

down in Article 32(1) of the GDPR. The EDPS also finds grounds to order Joga to bring the processing of personal data into line with Article 32(1) of the

not taken place in accordance with the rules in Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation [1]. 1. Below is a more detailed review of the case and

accordance with the rules in Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 and Article 5, para. Article 5 (2) 1, letter f. [1] Regulation (EU) 2016/679

violated security obligations under GDPR by not encrypting a USB flash drive which contained personal data, and Article 33(1) GDPR by not reporting the data breach

security numbers. 3.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from the data protection regulation article 32, subsection 1, that data controllers

The Danish DPA reprimanded a processor for violating Article 32(1) GDPR by storing user passwords in plain text and allowing access to its system via single-factor

violate the GDPR by using video surveillance on its premises. However, the DPA reprimanded the fitness centre for violating Article 32(1) GDPR by storing

without hiding the other recipients' email addresses, violating Article 32(1)(b) GDPR. SC Interactions Marketing SRL is a company providing Customer-R

requirements of Article 34(2) and Article 33(3) GDPR. The DPA expressed serious criticism to the controller for violating Article 32(1) GDPR. Moreover, it

in accordance with the rules in Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation [1]. Article 32 (1) and Article 24 (1) 1. Below is a more detailed review

The Court went on to state that Article 32 GDPR cannot be considered as a completely open standard: Article 32(1) GDPR specifies technical and organizational

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

no legal basis. This was a breach of Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 6(3) GDPR, Article 9(1) GDPR and Article 9(3) GDPR as well as Swedish health care legislation

following infringements of the UK GDPR: 1 • Article 5(1)(f) - Security and Article 32(1)(d) & (2) which state: Article 5(1)(f) Personal data shall be processed

Agency's decision 3.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows i.a. Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, that the data controller

with the GDPR, thus violating Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR, see also Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and Article 24(2) GDPR, as well

violating Article 32(4) jo Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR (security of processing). In addition, a fine of €5,000 for violating Article 25(1) GDPR (data protection

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

accordance with the rules in the Data Protection Ordinance [1] Article 32 (1). 1 and Article 25, para. 1. Below is a more detailed review of the case and a justification

security, cf. Article 4, no. 12 of the Data Protection Regulation. 3.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 32 (1) of the Data

accordance with the rules in Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation [1]. 1 and Article 24, para. Article 32 (1) 1. Below is a more detailed review

Ordinance [1] Article 32 (1). 1. The Danish Data Protection Agency also finds that Coop Danmark A / S has acted in accordance with Article 33 (1) of the Data

processing personal data in violation of Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and Article 32(1) GDPR. The DPA also requested the controller

about one party to a proceeding with another party, in violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. The Agency of Family Law (the controller) is a public authority that

appropriate security of the personal data under Article 5(2) and 32(1) GDPR. Pursuant Article 58(2)(c) GDPR, it asked the data controller to take measures

was clear to the DPA that the principle of privacy by design under Article 25(1) GDPR had not been considered. Better testing of the platform before launching

DPA concluded that the controller acted in violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

Romania SA, the data controller, violation Article 29 GDPR, Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(2) GDPR, Article 32(4) GDPR The DPA fined the data controller €2

in breach of Articles 32(1)(b), 32(2) and 32(4) GDPR. Firstly, the DPA held that the controller had breached Article 32(1)(b) GDPR (confidentiality, integrity

email containing a file with personal data, resulting in a breach of Article 32(1) GDPR. The Swedish DPA received complaints alleging that on January 20 2021

accordance with the rules in the Data Protection Ordinance [1], Article 32 (1). 1, and Article 33, para. 1. The Danish Data Protection Agency also finds grounds

were impacted. The DPA held that the controller violated Articles 32(1)(b) and 32(2) GDPR for not implementing adequate technical and organizational measures

the confidentiality of the personal data, in breach of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. The DPA emphasised, referring to recital 38, that children

under Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 5 GDPR, and for having published personal data on their website without lawful grounds under Article 6 GDPR and Article

organizational measures pursuant to Article 32 GDPR. The court held that the controller violated Article 32(1) GDPR, which requires appropriate technical

personal data from its clients through Whatsapp, in violation of Article 32(1)(b), (2) and (4) GDPR. The Ing Bank NV branch in Bucarest, as a controller, notified

Norwegian Health Records Act (pasientjournalloven) and Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR (cf. Article 5 GDPR). The DPA fined Moss municipality NOK 500,000 (€47

the information processed, cf. Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 32 (1) (d) and Article 32 (1) 1. When choosing a response, the

security and confidentiality for personal data, in breach of Article 32(1)(b) and Article 32(2) GDPR. The DPA further noted that the controller did not reply

Valoris did not fulfill its obligations laid down in Article 29, Article 32(1)(b), and Article 32(4) GDPR. Even if the employee of Valoris was not allowed

ensure appropriate safeguards according to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. This is further regulated in Article 32(1) GDPR. The controller did not prove that they implemented

instructions, Article 32(4) GDPR. The controller also failed to implement necessary measures meant to ensure the confidentiality of data, Article 32(1)(b) GDPR

provisions of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. The DPA fined the processor €2,000 for this data breach. Under the Article 58(2)(d) GDPR it was decided

pursuant to Article 32(4) and Article 29 GDPR. The DPA therefore held that the controller violated Article 29 and Article 32(1)(b), (2), and (4) GDPR and fined

meaning of Article 4 no. 7 of the GDPR.1,000 euros from Art. 82 (1) GDPR due to various violations of the GDPR. 22 1. The defendant violated Art. 32 (1) GDPR

two-factor authentication, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d), cf. Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. For this, the DPA fined the Parliament about

result, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 29, Article 32(1)(b), and Article 32(2) GDPR. The DPA fined the processor €3,000 (RON 14,825.70)

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

data without a legal base, in breach of Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(2), Article 5(1)(a), and Article 6(1) GDPR. Following a data breach, the controller

controller violated Article 5(1) GDPR in Article 24 GDPR and Article 25 GDPR, as well as Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR, and instructed the

security, cf. Article 4, no. 12 of the Data Protection Regulation. 3.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 32 (1) of the Data

appropriate level of security in accordance with Article 32 GDPR. One of the requirements under Article 32(1) GDPR is to identify risks associated with the processing

decision that there is of infringements of Article 32(1), (2) and (4) of the GDPR and of 24(1) of the GDPR due to taking insufficient measures to ensure

of personal data follow from Article 5 (1) of the Privacy Regulation. We refer to Article 5 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (f): 3 1. Personal data shall a) is processed

of Art. 32(1) and (4) GDPR.” 32. Article 32 of the GDPR relates to the security of processing of personal data. More specifically, Article 32(1) of the

documentation. The Spanish DPA concluded that there was a breach of Article 5(1)(f) and 32(1) of the GDPR. The access to the third parties’ personal data constituted

appropriate technical and organisational measures, as required by Article 32(1) GDPR, to ensure the proper administration of welfare. In summer 2021, the

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

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

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

insufficiently secured; the legal requirements of Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR and Article 32 (1) (a) GDPR have been complied with. The German data protection

breach of Articles 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b) and 6 GDPR. Regarding the principle of integrity and confidentiality, Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1)(b) GDPR establish that the

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

were consent cf. Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The DPA referred to Article 4(11) GDPR, Article 7 GDPR and Recital 32 regarding the conditions

Trygg-Hansa SEK 35 million (around €3 million) for breaching Article 5(1) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR. In April 2022, Moderna Försäkringar was acquired by Trygg-Hansa

data minimisation principles (Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and security requirements under Article 32(1) GDPR. The DPA held that there were

requirements by Article 13 of the GDPR with regard to employees, a non-compliance with measures prescribed by Article 32.1 of the GDPR, as well as non-compliance

the data subjects. 1) A) The Controller has not respected Article 32, paragraph (1), point (a) and(b) and paragraph (2) of that article of Regulation (EU)

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

refers infringements of Article 5 (1) (a) and 5.1 c and SEK 50,000 (fifty thousand) infringements of Article 32 (1) and Article 32 (4) of the Data Protection

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

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

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

provisions of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR by: (a) failing

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

based on Article 3, paragraph 2, Article 5, paragraph 1 a), f) of GDPR subsection, Article 6(1), Article 9(2), Article 58(2)(d), GDPR Article 23 and Article

is more specifically regulated in Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 of the General Data Protection Regulation. Article 32(1) states that the appropriate measures

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

contrary to Article 32(1)(d) GDPR. When calculating the financial penalties, the DPA considered the factors described in Article 83(2) GDPR to decide to

processor’s actions in determining that the controller violated Article 5(1)(f), 32(1), and 32(2) GDPR. The DPA issued a € 2,800,000 fine. In doing so, it balanced

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

personal data in violation of Article 5 (1) (f) and (2) and Article 32 (1) and (2) of the Data Protection Regulation by 1. Aleris Sjukvård AB has not carried

controller under Article 24(1) GDPR, Article 25 (1) GDPR, Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR#2"Article 32(2) GDPR. Share blogs

schooling than necessary is contrary to Article 32 (1) the Data Protection Regulation. According to Article 32 (1), the Board of Education shall include

found that the Healthcare committee violated Article 5(1)(f), Article 5(2), Article 32(1) and Article 32(2). The DPA investigated the logging practices

restrictions on access to patient records as a breach of Article 5(1)(f), Article 32(1) and Article 32(2). During the supervisory inspection, the caregiver

4. [Article 5 GDPR#1f|Article 5(1)(f)]] in conjunction with Article 5(2), i.e. the principles of integrity and confidentiality, and Article 32 GDPR by failing

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

controller under Article 24(1) GDPR to ensure that appropriate technical and organisational measures are put in place, in accordance with Article 32 GDPR, and that

paragraph 1. Article 32 and f-points 1. paragraph Article 5 of regulation (EU) 2016/679, cf. also paragraph 1 Article 27 and number 6. Paragraph 1 Article 8 Act

process personal data securely, in violation of Articles 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR. Two aspects of the decisions are interesting. First

processes personal data in violation of Article 5 (1) (f) and 5.2 and Article 32 (1) and (2) of the Data Protection Regulation 1 by Sahlgrenska University Hospital

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

with art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 5 sec. 2, art. 6 sec. 1, art. 7 sec. 1, art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. b and art. 32 sec. 2, art. 58

complained party, by the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Notified the

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

of the case (Article 107 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Procedure in connection with Article 77 § 1, Article 80, Article 8 § 1 and Article 11 of the Code

satellite platform operator €250,000 for violating Article 24(1),Article 32(1), and Article 32(2) GDPR for not implementing appropriate technical and organisational

Consequently, the DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(c) and (e), Article 25(2), Article 32(1)(d) and Article 32(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

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

failure to implement these measures infringes Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1) of the GDPR. 5.35 Article 32(1)(d) specifies that appropriate technical and organisational

these reasons, the DPA found violations of Article 5(1)(c) and (e) and Article 32(1)(b) and (d) and 32(2) GDPR, imposing a fine of €240,000. Share your comments

explicitly requested – the processing pursuant to Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The controller could not use Article 32(1) GDPR to refuse to act on the request, either.

the proceedings. Hence, the GDPR was considered to be applicable. Accordingly, the DPA found a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR regarding the security of

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

infringed the principle of integrity and confidentiality of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32(1) GDPR by failing to ensure appropriate security of the personal

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

most" ten online registrations via this mechanism. Pursuant to Article 32(1) of the GDPR, controllers are obliged to take appropriate technical and organisational

flows by the SA pursuant to Article 58(2) GDPR or failure to provide access in violation of Article 58(1) GDPR. Article 83(6) GDPR is a superfluous provision

“personal data breach” under Article 4(12) GDPR. Issue 1 concerned the question whether the controller had infringed Article 33 GDPR in the manner in which it

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

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

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

IMPOSE D.C.C.C., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 32.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4, a) of the GDPR, a fine of €2,000 (two a thousand

accessed the CCTV cameras, thereby infringing Article 32(1) GDPR. The Council also violated Sections 71(1)(f), 72(1) and 78 of the 2018 Act by failing to implement

obligations were applicable, therefore violating Article 33 and Article 34 GDPR. According to Article 32(1) GDPR, controllers and processors should implement

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

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

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

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

pursuant to Article 32(1) GDPR. The DPA held that the controller infringed Article 12(3) GDPR, when it failed to reply to an access request within one (1) month

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

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

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

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

found a violation of Article 25 GDPR, the obligation to implement data protection by design and by default, Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, the responsibility "to

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

infringement of Article 5 (1) (a) and (2), Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 24 GDPR 2. there is no infringement of Article 5 of the Act of 21 March 2007 until 1 regulation

in accordance with Article 32 Paragraph 1 GDPR by the applicant in an appropriate manner in accordance with Article 32 Paragraph 1 GDPR to be secured, e

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

codes of conduct on the basis of Article 41 of Regulation 2016/679 and of a certification body on the basis of Article 43 of Regulation 2016/679; To ensure

violation of Article 24 GDPR. Moreover, the DPA stressed that controllers must be able to demonstrate that they obtained consent, pursuant to Article 7(1) GDPR

the competent supervisory authority of such a breach. Article 34(1) GDPR differs from Article 33 GDPR. Instead of having to notify the supervisor authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the GDPR neither to the ZVOPOKD (for ex. Slovene Intelligence and Security Agency) for these the ‘2007’ ZVOP-1 is still fully applicable and GDPR does

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

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

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

the parties. Section 100 of the Slovak Data Protection Act implements Article 77 GDPR. The complaint shall include (Section 100 (3)): The name, surname, correspondence

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

in the EDPB's Rules of Procedure (“RoP”). Article 33(1) RoP stipulates that in “accordance with Art 76 (1) GDPR”, discussions of the Board and of expert

accordance with Article 58(2) [GDPR]”. These is a reference to the information that SAs must keep in internal records according to Article 57(1)(u) GDPR. The report

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

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

the information society service(s)." According to Article 4(25) GDPR, which in turn refers to Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535, an "information society

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

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

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

of Article 15(1)(c) GDPR, which permits in certain cases that the information provided is limited to "categories of recipient[s]": Article 15 GDPR is 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

Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 75 GDPR, p. 1105 (Oxford University Press 2020). Dix, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 75 GDPR, margin number 6

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

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

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

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

establishes an EU-wide penalty regime for violations under Article 83 GDPR, Article 84(1) GDPR dispenses with complete harmonisation. It does, however, provide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

first glance, Article 92 GDPR's wording seems to be in conflict with Article 290(1) TFEU, but in actuality it is not. Article 92(2) GDPR must be read in

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

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

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

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

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

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

request (Article 61(5) GDPR), the requesting SA may adopt a provisional measure on the territory of its Member State under Article 55(1) GDPR. If the SA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

will then go to the Court of Justice (CJEU) for a final decision. Article 64 states: 1.   The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to hear all disputes

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

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

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

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

the basis of (i) its legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) or (ii) the public interest (Article 6(1)(e) GDPR). Hence, data subjects may find themselves

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)

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

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

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

According to the final paragraph in Article 49(1) GDPR, when none of the derogations described above (Article 49(1)(a-g) GDPR) is applicable, transfers to third

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

categories of data listed under Article 9(1) GDPR. There have been conflicting arguments as to whether Article 22(1) GDPR lays down a right or a general

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

must also be involved in the drafting of the DPIA under Article 35(2) GDPR and Article 39(1)(c) GDPR, and their advice should be recorded by the controller

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

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

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

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

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

regard resources. II.1. Article 5 (1) (a) and (2) of the GDPR and Article 6 (1) of the GDPR II.1.1. Article 5 (1) a) and Article 6 (1) GDPR with regard to legality

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

as pupils and parents) and so high security measures under Article 32 GDPR and Article 25 GDPR are required. The Danish DPA observed a number of personal

infringements of Article 5(1)(f), Article 24, and Article 32 GDPR, and to the objection of the IT SA on the possible infringement of Article 5(2) GDPR, the EDPB

elements. Infringement of Article 6 and 9 GDPR qualifies for the maximum amount for administrative fines as set out in Article 83(5) GDPR: 20,000,000 € or 4%

ISWEB violated Article 28(2) GDPR and Article 28(4) GDPR as a processor on behalf of the hospitals and Article 28(1) GDPR and Article 28(3) GDPR as controller

sanction for both Article 5(1)(f) and 32 GDPR in this case would constitute a double violation of the GDPR, when in fact Article 5(1)(f) GDPR is merely a concretion

the RGPD and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR and Article 83.4 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd

the Member States. Example: Article 6(1)(a) GDPR Example: Not Art. 6 Abs 1 Lit a GDPR or Article 6 GDPR or GDPR Article 6, Sec 1(a) Recitals are also not

pertaining to human dignity (Article 2(1) Greek Constitution) and to the right to freely form one's personality (Article 5(1) Greek Constitution). The HDPA

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

the alleged violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and article 32 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 and 83.4 of the GDPR. The initiation agreement

setting a penalty of €1,000 (one thousand euros). SAW Article 32 of the GDPR Article 32 “Security of processing” of the GDPR establishes: "1. Taking into account

the DPA determined that the legal grounds of Article 6(1)(b), 6(1)(c), Article 6(1)(d) and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR were not applicable in this case. It also

The heading of Article 6(1) and the wording “has given” in Article 6(1)(a) support this interpretation. It follows logically from Article 6 and Recital

by article 32.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) V Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83.5 of the RGPD, the aforementioned article provides

breach of Article 32 of the GDPR has occurred. B. On the failure to notify the data breach to the CNIL 32. Pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the GDPR, in the

controller €80,000: €50,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €30,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. The original fine of €80,000 was reduced

Vodafone S.p.A in violation of the following GDPR provisions: Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) and Article 25(1): for failing to implement control systems of

infringement of Article 32 GDPR. Therefore, the Spanish DPA issued a warning sanction for each violation of Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR. AEPD highlighted

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

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) GDPR

to a claim under Article 82 (1) GDPR, which he could also base on Article 823 (1) BGB in conjunction with Article 2 (1) and Article 1 (1) GG. The defendant

artistic or literary purposes, only Article 24, Article 26, Article 28, Article 29, Article 32, and Article 40- Article 43 applies, following § 3. Special

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

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

Paragraph 24 of Schedule 2 states that the GDPR provisions Article 13(1) to (3), Article 14(1) to (4) and Article 15(1) to (3) do not apply to personal data

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

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

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

Sections 1004 analogously, Section 823 (1) and (2) BGB in conjunction with Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR. Claims under data protection law could

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

has consented to processing of his or her data (Art 7 (1) GDPR). This is equally true under Article 7(a) of the Directive 95/46, which required that the

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

not necessarily meet the requirements of Article 32 GDPR. To what extent are the provisions in Article 32 GDPR obligatory and thus, not subject to the preferences

“type-ahead” search function on the municipality’s website under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. It also found that the purpose of this function was to offer a better

be processed in accordance with Article 6 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 (a) to (f). Pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation

the rules in the Data Protection Regulation [1], cf. Article 6 (1). Article 17 (1) (e) and Article 17 (1) 3, letter b. However, the Danish Data Protection

accordance with Article 6 (1) 1, letter a, if the processing is necessary for the performance of a contract in accordance with Article 6 (1). 1, letter b, if

processor €30,000 under Article 58(2) GDPR and Article 83(4) GDPR for the breach of Article 32(2), Article 32(4) GDPR and Article 28(3) GDPR. As for the controller

based on a legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, so that the principle of lawfulness under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR is violated. This is due to the fact

breaching Articles 12(1), 14(1)(c), 14(2) and 14(3) GDPR. In addition, Datatilsynet also issued criticism in relation to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR for the controller’s

Applicable provisions Article 5.1.d: Principle of accuracy Article 5.1.f: Principle of integrity and confidentiality Article 32: Processing security Summary

Articles 5, 13, 24, 32, 35 and 58(2)(f) GDPR. UAB IT Solutions Success was fined €3,000 for violating Articles 5, 13, 24, 32 and 35 GDPR. The Lithuanian DPA

. That Krifa - in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 2, cf. Article 32 (1) (f), cf. 1 and 2 - has demonstrated that a risk

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

infringement of Article 32 GDPR in conjunction with Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? The Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) found that the controller violated Article 32 GDPR as they

the law firm - in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 2, cf. Article 32 (1) (f), cf. 1 and 2 - has demonstrated that a risk

with the requirements of Article 32 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 and Article 5 (1). 2, cf. Article 32 (1) (f), cf. 1 and 2. It is clear, among

case the data subject. Violation of Article 24(1) GDPR The DPA determined that the controller violated Article 24(1) GDPR, because the controller did not implement

CPDP issued NRA an order under Article 58(2)(d) supra Article 57(1)(a) and Article 83(2)(a), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the GDPR for undertaking suitable technical

II Article 6.1 of the GDPR establishes the assumptions that allow the processing of personal data to be considered lawful. Article 32 of the GDPR provides

of processing. This lead to a security incident, in breach of Article 28(1) and 32 GDPR, for which the controller was fined RON 9,836.6 (approximately

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

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

limitation principle enshrined in Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, and also failed to fulfill its obligation under Articles 25 and 32 GDPR. Consequently, the DPA issued

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

comes regulated in article 32 of the GDPR. II Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR establishes the following: "Article 5 Principles relating

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)

Spanish DPA fined a magazine company €31,200 for violating Articles 5(1)(f), 32, and 33 GDPR because of a personal data security breach caused by vulnerabilities

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned

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

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

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

controller with €10,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €25,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. There is a pattern in the Spanish DPA resolutions

Data Protection Agency, OIB: 28454963989 based on Article 57 paragraph 1 and Article 58 paragraph 1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

consent valid? The HDPA found that: 1) The telephone number constitutes personal data according to Article 4(1) GDPR as the owner can be indirectly identified

(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

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

for a possible personal data breach affecting confidentiality, as per Article 32 GDPR. The decision is the consequence of the notification of a possible personal

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

municipalities has not complied with Article 28 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 32 (3) (f), cf. Article 32, as the company has not implemented

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

without implementing the appropriate security measures as required by Article 32 GDPR. The server was internally classified as an internal developer box and

unlawfully, as it breached Articles 5 and 6(1) GDPR. For this violation, the DPA used its powers under Article 82(5)(a) and fined the association with €500

destruction. As an effect, the processor has been fined RON 7 331,85 (approx EUR 1 500). Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The decision

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

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

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

party, respectively. III Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) “Principles relating to processing” of the GDPR establishes: "1. The personal data will

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

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

controller under the GDPR. The data controller did not process personal data with an appropriate level of security, as required by article 32, read in conjunction

with NIF C28328508, for an infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and for a second infringement of article 32 of the RGPD, typified respectively in articles

the Article 33 GDPR. The DPA also ordered the controller to communicate the data breach to the affected data subjects pursuant to Article 34 GDPR. The

domicile in AV. DE AMERICA, NUM 9, PORTAL A, PISO -1, PTA. 1 - 28022 MADRID. RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION 1: Once a request for information has been made to

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

Guarantor pursuant to Article 166(7) of the Code" (Article 16(1) of the Regulation of the EDPS). 16(1) of the Garante's Regulation No. 1/2019). In this regard

reports concerning workers of the respondent. Is it compliant with Article 32 of the GDPR to leave at sight in the street data concerning the medical reports

regulated in article 32 of the GDPR, which regulates the security of the treatment. IV. Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR establishes

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

police. The DPA assessed the appropriate sanctions in accordance with Article 83(2) GDPR and suggested a fine of approximately €67,000 (DKK 500,000). The DPA

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

privacy policies, which is contrary to Article 12 paragraph 1 of the GDPR and, in this regard, to Article 13 paragraphs 1 and 2; 5. For the recording of telephone

by the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: On

data security, finding the violation of the provisions of art. 32 para. (4), art. 32 para. (1) lit. b) and par. (2) of the General Regulation on Data Protection

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

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

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned

obligation under the articles5 (1) (f), 5 (2), 15, 32 and 33 of the Regulation, as well as article 33 (1) (y) of Law 125 (1) / 2018and she was asked to submit

ensure the security of personal data (Article 32 GDPR) The DPA held that the controller violated Article 32 GDPR because of several reasons. Password requirements:

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

right to object under Article 21(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 12(1) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR, Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR. Telenet asked for

processing as per Article 5(1)(b), nor legal grounds as per Article 6. In sum, the DPA found that NIF had breached Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (f), Article 6, and Article

typified in the article 83.5 of the RGPD, and for the violation of article 32 of the RGPD, classified in the article 83.4 of the GDPR. The aforementioned

violation of Article 32 GDPR in ten cases due to inadequate security measures. Similarly, Plegma Net was found to be in violation of Article 32 GDPR in ten cases

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

violation of security. 1.1. Categories of affected: Aid applicants (minors and their representatives). 1.2. Number of records: 100 1.3. Committed personal

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

pursuant to art. 32, paragraph 1, GDPR - the nature, context and purposes, it emerges that the sharing of the agicwhistle \ spadmin user: 1. has never provided

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

€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

complied with Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 and 2, Article 33, para. Article 34 (3) (d) 1 and 2, and Article 5, para. 1, letter a. The

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

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

breach of Article 28 paragraphs 3 and 4 of the GDPR is clear. 2. On the breach of the obligation to ensure data security 49. According to Article 32 of the

domicile in AV. DE AMERICA, NUM 9, PORTAL A, PISO -1, PTA. 1 - 28022 MADRID. RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION 1: Once a request for information has been made to

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

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 33 of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD

purpose constituted a breach of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. Secondly, the CNIL indicated that the controller breached Article 13 GDPR by failing to include the right

in the tax information portals had in any case violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR, because the large-scale and permanent publication of personal

ensure the security of personal data pursuant to Article 32 of the GDPR Article 32 of the Rules provides: 1. Taking into account the state of knowledge, the

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

administrative procedure according to the provisions of article 114.1.c) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations

during the implementation of the processing, in line with Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR. Additionally, regarding the access to personal data and

identify the customers, while the customers' name only is not sufficient. Article 87 GDPR regulates the processing of a national identity number. This is also

rating without a legal basis under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and for not adhering to the accountability principle as per Article 5(2). The DPA also requires that

required by Article 35(3)(b). The AEPD also held that there had a been a violation of Article 32 because of a failure to comply with GDPR security measure

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 the

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

the Guarantor pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code "(Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Guarantor Regulation no. 1/2019). In this regard, taking