Search results

respect of Article 33. If a controller who is not established in the EU but falls under the scope of Article 3(2) or Article 3(3) of the GDPR experiences

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

commentary under Article 33(3)(a) GDPR. Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 34 GDPR, margin number 11 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). In our

(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)

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

compliance with the GDPR. Article 28(3)(h) GDPR enables such a task in case processors are used. According to Article 28(3)(h) GDPR, the processor should

Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 7 GDPR, margin number 80 (C.H. Beck, 2nd Edition 2018). Stemmer, in Wolff, Brink, BeckOK Datenschutzrecht, Article 7 GDPR, margin number

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

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

(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

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

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

Kühling/Buchner, DSGVO, Article 2 GDPR, margin number 15 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Bäcker, in Wolff, Brink, BeckOK Datenschutzrecht, Article 2 GDPR, margin number

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

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

BDSG, Article 32 GDPR, margin number 28 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 32 GDPR, margin number 29 (C.H. Beck

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

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

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

decisions in Category:Article 76 GDPR Dix, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 76 GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Docksey, in

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

commentary to Article 60 GDPR, Article 61 GDPR, Article 62 GDPR, Article 63 GDPR, Article 64 GDPR, Article 65 GDPR, Article 66 GDPR and Article 56 GDPR. The SA

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

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 in Category:Article 26 GDPR Petri, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 26 GDPR, margin number 12 (C.H. Beck 2019).

or processor should be approved pursuant to Article 58(3) GDPR, or by the EDPB pursuant to Article 63 GDPR. Where such an approval takes place through

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

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

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

years as per Article 45(3) GDPR, and subject to regular reporting, which Article 97(2) GDPR provides for. The third paragraph of Article 97 GDPR, obliges the

consent under Article 7(3), object under Article 21 GDPR or if the processing is in fact compliant with the principles of Article 5(1) GDPR. Simply listing

Regulation (GDPR), Article 82 GDPR, p. 1162, 1164, 1175. (Oxford University Press 2020); Quaas, in BeckOK DatenschutzR, Article 82 GDPR, margin number 3 (C.H. Beck

out pursuant to Article 83(1) GDPR. This part of Article 83 concerns the principle of "unity of action" (see above). With Article 83(3) GDPR, the legislator

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

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

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

BDSG, Article 69 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Dix in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 69 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck

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)

BDSG, Article 59 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck 2020). Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 59 GDPR, margin number 7 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition)

relying on another legal basis under Article 6 GDPR, or can use either of the exceptions under Article 17(3) GDPR, the processing can carry on. The controller

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

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

organisation), Article 45(5) GDPR (revocation, change of such determinations); Articles 46(2)(c) and (d) GDPR (standard protection clauses); Article 47(3) GDPR (formats

Datenschutzrecht, Article 73 GDPR, margin number 3 (C.H. Beck 2019, 1st edition). Nguyen, in Gola, DS-GVO, Article 73 GDPR, margin number 2 (C.H. Beck 2018

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.H. Beck

Regulation, Article 68 GDPR, margin number 3 (C.H. Beck 2023, 1st edition). Albrecht in Ehmann, Selmayr, Article 68 GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. C.H. Beck 2018

dnung, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 18 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition). For further information, please refer to Article 18 GDPR. CJEU, Case C-434/16,

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

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

derogation from Article 64(3) and Article 65(2), an urgent opinion or an urgent binding decision referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall be adopted

Regulation; (c) aims to approve the criteria for accreditation of a body pursuant to Article 41(3) or a certification body pursuant to Article 43(3); (d) aims

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

Gola, DS-GVO, Article 4 GDPR, margin number 106 (C.H. Beck 2018). EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November

BDSG, Article 92 GDPR, margin number 8 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). Herbst in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 92 GDPR, margin number 13 (C.H. Beck

Regulation. Noting that a broader reading of Article 98 GDPR is supported by the wording of Article 2(3) GDPR, which provides that: 'For the processing of

subject (Article 57(3) GDPR). Pötters, Werkmeister in Gola, DS-GVO, Article 77 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck 2022, 3rd edition). CJEU - C-132/21 - Nemzeti

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

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

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

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 72 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Nguyen in Gola, DS-GVO, Article 72 GDPR, margin numbers 1-2 (C.H. Beck 2018

processing (Article 36(3)(c) GDPR); the contact details of the Data Protection Officer (DPO) (Article 36(3)(d) GDPR); a copy of the DPIA (Article 36(3)(e) GDPR)

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

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

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

use of trusted third party verification services. Article 8(3) GDPR makes it clear that Article 8(1) GDPR only refers to consent, not to the object of the

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

DSGVO, Article 81 GDPR, margin number 3 (Jan Sramek 2021). Bergt in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 81 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition)

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)

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

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

Datenschutzrecht, Article 80 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2019); Bergt in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 80 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition)

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

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

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

to Article 57 GDPR and for their powers please refer to Article 58 GDPR. See Recital 122 GDPR. In this respect, reference should be made to Case C‑288/12

BDSG, Article 78 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition); Körffer in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 78 GDPR, margin numbers 3-5, (C.H. Beck

all related decisions in Category:Article 3 GDPR EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1)

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

adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45 GDPR shall be used, when it exists; second, appropriate safeguards under Article 46 GDPR, such as binding corporate

Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 35 GDPR, margin number 18 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). Furthermore, Article 39(1)(c) assigns the duty to the DPO

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

Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. CJEU, Case C‑28/08, European

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

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

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

EDPB in accordance with Article 70(1)(b) GDPR. According to Article 45(5) GDPR, the continued monitoring referred to in paragraph 3, or other information

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

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

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

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

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

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

complaint with the CNIL regarding an alleged infringement of the GDPR. According to Article 10 of the Decree n°2019-536, the complaint will be deemed rejected

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 35, para

protection within the meaning of Article 45 of the GDPR and without appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of the GDPR. Furthermore, the plaintiff

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

violation of Articles 5,15 GDPR, 33 Law 4624/2019. Thus, the HDPA, making use of its corrective powers of Article 58(2)c GDPR, ordered the College to provide

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)

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

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

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,

council in Greece to cease their processing activities, under Article 58(2) GDPR and Article 15(8) of Law 4624/2019, because of an unresolved data breach

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

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

Breyer, C-582/14, EU:C:2016:779, paras 45–46. 10 ECJ judgment M.I.C.M, C-597/19, EU:C:2021:492, paragraphs 102–104 and Breyer judgment, C-582/14, EU:C:2016:779

this regulation in accordance with Article 57 (1) (a) GDPR and which has the powers in accordance with Article 58 GDPR. For this reason alone, there was

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

plastic applied the text "shredding". 4.2. Article 33 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 33 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1

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

authority under Article 33 GDPR. First, the Hellenic Data Protection Authority established the violation of Article 5(1)(a) and (f) GDPR, committed through

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

of the GDPR mentioned in Article 5, namely the limitation of purpose and the minimization of data, as well as the national legislation (d.lgs. 33/2013)

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

theRundfunk etc. , C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, EU: C: 2003: 294, paragraph 65, and of 1 May 2014, GoogleSpain and Googie. C-131/12, EU: C: 2014: 317, paragraph

data breach and at least the data and measures referred to in Article 33(3)(b), (c) and (d). 3. The communication to the person concerned referred to in paragraph

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

violation of Article 33 GDPR. The DPA imposed a fine of EUR 3,0000 for breach of Article 32 GDPR and a warning for breach of Article 33 GDPR. Also, the DPA

contain at least the information and measures referred to in Article 33(3)(b), (c) and (d). 3. The communication to the person concerned referred to in paragraph

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

for more details. Article 2: Material scope Article 2.2.c: Exclusively personal or domestic activity Article 3: Territorial scope Article 4.1: Personal data

the data under Article 10 GDPR. The Court rejected an argument from Brein that article 6:162 BW could be used besides Articles 32 and 33 UAVG to provide

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

to the description requirement in Article 33, para. 3. 3.3. Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation and Article 5 (1) 1, letter a. Assessment of the

and at least contain the information and measures referred to in Article 33 (2). 3 (b), (c) and (d). The deadline for compliance is January 7, 2020 . The

information that it deems pertinent, in accordance with Article 89.2 of the LPACAP. C.C.C. INSPECTOR/INSTRUCTOR C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd

regards to the security incident, in breach of Article 33 GDPR, for which the controller was fined RON 4,918.3 (approximately €1,000). Furthermore, the DPA

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

subjects, according to Article 33(1) GDPR and Article 34(1) GDPR? The PUODO held that the insurance company infringed the GDPR provisions, failing to notify

DE SA’s objection on Article 33(3) GDPR fails to meet the requirements set out in Article 4(24) GDPR Infringement of Article 34 GDPR on the communication

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

A80907397, for the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.4 of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT C.C.C. as instructor. and, as secretary

violated Article 33(1) GDPR by failing to inform the DPA of the data breach. Second, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 28(1), (3) and (9)

2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Code and art. 6, par. 1, lett. c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, lett. b) of the Regulations; c) in violation of the "more

accordance with Article 33 GDPR to the Belgian DPA. Nonetheless, there were suspicions that the controller did not comply with Article 32 GDPR. Especially

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

Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, ECLI: EU: C: 2014: 238, r.o. 27. Decision on the merits 05/2021 - 15/22 39. Article 33 (1) of the GDPR states: “If there

this an aggravating factor. Finally, the DPA found that a violation of Article 33 GDPR. The DPA stated that the controller knew it had suffered a data breach

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 regard

2020 [CONFIDENTIAL] 3.3 Report obligation in connection with personal data on AP 3.3.1 Breach of Personal Data On the basis of Article 33, first paragraph

violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, letter c) and e), paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, letter b), of the Regulation and Article 19, paragraph 3, of the Code

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

(controller) notified the Romanian DPA of two data breaches in line with Article 33 GDPR. Following the notifications, the DPA launched an investigation which

found that there had been a “personal data breach” pursuant to Article 4 (12) of the GDPR as a result of the publication on the municipal website regarding

pénalité), C-439/19, EU:C:2021:504, paragraph 61, judgment Nowak, C-434/16, EU:C:2017:994, paragraph 33 and judgment Rijkeboer, C-553/07, EU:C:2009:293,

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

The AEPD approved a transport hub's compliance with Articles 32 and 33 GDPR after having used its investigation powers. After a security guard of Madrid’s

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

infringement of Article 5.1 b) in conjunction with Article 6.4. AVG, on article 5.1 a) in conjunction with article 6.1. AVG and on article 5.1 c) GDPR has been

the Municipality lawful in accordance with Articles 5(1)(c), 6(1)(c), (e), 6(2), and 6(3)(b) GDPR? The DPA held that the disclosure of the personal data

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

addresses that the Medical List does today, cf. GDPR Article 4, No. 11, Article 6 No. 1 letter a, Article 7 and Article 9 No. 2 letter a If current practice is

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

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

three years, which was in violation of Article 12(3) GDPR. The DPA also determined a violation of Article 17(1)(a) GDPR, because data subject's e-mail accounts

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

private doctor for violating Article 32 GDPR by making his patients' health data freely accessible on the web, and Article 33 GDPR by not notifying the DPA

contain at least the information and measures referred to in Art. 33 paragraph. 3 lit. b), c) and d) of Regulation 2016/679 (see table), that is: a) the name

controller (Article 24 GDPR), security of processing (Article 32 GDPR) and reporting a personal data breach to the supervisory authority (Article 33 GDPR) 79.

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

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

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

II.3.3. Regarding the scope of Art. 44 ff GDPR: If the following three requirements are met, there is a transfer and Chapter V (Art. 44 ff) GDPR is applicable

pénalité), C-439/19, EU:C:2021:504, paragraph 61, judgment Nowak, C-434/16, EU:C:2017:994, paragraph 33 and judgment Rijkeboer, C-553/07, EU:C:2009:293,

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

force of Legislative Decree 101/2018), in relation to Articles 33 and 154, paragraph 1, lett. c) of the same Code; NOTING that, by examining the documents

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

appear in the name of C.C.C. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/14 2. That, thanks to friendly talks with C.C.C., the complainant

operation of the TCF (Article 14.5.b GDPR); c. the acquisition of these data is not prescribed by law (Article 14.5.c of the GDPR); and d. the personal

judgments of the European Court of Justice C-131/12 and C-136/17 In the judgments of the EU Court C-131/12 and C-136/17, it has been stated that the processing

but have requested a judgment, is incomprehensible. 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 6.9 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 The contested consideration of the court from para

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

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)

to the public, violating Article 24 GDPR. The decision discusses as well, the relationship between directive 95/46/EC and GDPR. The DPA highlighted that

therefore of the opinion that no breach of Article 5.2 of the GDPR, Article 24.1 of the GDPR and Article 33 of the GDPR can be established. - As regards the

also met. 3.3. In the matter 3.3.1. Legal situation: Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the CouncilArticle 12, of Regulation

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

seriously impair the achievement of purposes pursuant to Article 89(1) GDPR. In principle, Article 89(3) GDPR contains an opening clause. This provision was also

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

complied with the requirements of Article 33(3) of the GDPR following the occurrence of the PDB (Article 83(2)(c) of the GDPR). The Company, as data controller

of an infringement of the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR principle of fairness, and infringements of the Article 5(1)(b) and (c) GDPR principles of purpose limitation

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

reasons the Italian DPA, with the power conferred by Article 58(2)(d) and (f) and Article 83(3) and (5) GDPR, imposed to Fastweb multiple corrective measures

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

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

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

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

minimisation under Article 5(1)(b) and (c) GDPR, the EDPB decides this objection does not meet the requirements of Article 4(24) GDPR. On the objections

[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

data subject (Article 26 GDPR). The processing by the processor must, in accordance with the provisions of article 28 paragraph 3 of the GDPR, be governed

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

and others / Kadi, C ‑ 584/10 P, C ‑ 593/10 P and C ‑ 595/10 P,ECLI: EU: C: 2013: 518, points 98 and 99.15 CJEU, September 10, 2013, C-383/13 PPU, case G

in the field in the field called "carbon copy" (C.C.) instead of the "blind carbon copy" field (C.C.N.) . With reference to this matter, the Hospital

the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.4 of the RGPD and Article 83.5 of the RGPD. The initiation

Norway, and not the GDPR. The DPA does, however, refer to corresponding Articles in the GDPR: Articles 5(1)(b) and (c), as well as Article 17. Share blogs

obligations arising from article 12.3 and 4 of the GDPR (methods for exercising the data subject's rights) and Article 15.1.b) and c) 5 of the GDPR (right of access

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

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

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

under Article 82 UK-GDPR and sections 168 and 169 of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018. The defendant applied for the claim to be struck out under 3.4(2)(a)

provided for in Article 56(1), read in conjunction with Article 56(2), read in conjunction with Article 56(3), read in conjunction with Article 56(4), read

Privacy Regulation (GDPR) article 6 no. 1 letter f. GDPR applies according to the Personal Data Act § 1 as Norwegian law. Legelisten.no (3) Legelisten.no is

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

private film footage to D and C after B had moved from the home. She made false allegations about A, which D and C adopted. D and C then used the film footage

the data subject must delete the personal data in accordance with Article 17(1)(c) GDPR unless it is able to demonstrate that there are "compelling and legitimate

measures pursuant to Article 58 (2) (d) DSGVO were announced - this error would in any case have been remedied pursuant to Article 45 (1) no. 3 VwVfG by the fact

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

this procedure from other European supervisors. 3.3 Appropriate Security Measures 3.3.1 Introduction Article32 of the AVG are the requirements concerning

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

around the processing of personal data subject to Article 10 GDPR. Pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the Privacy Appeals Board conducted a balancing test

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

pénalité), C-439/19, EU:C:2021:504, paragraph 61, judgment Nowak, C-434/16, EU:C:2017:994, paragraph 33 and judgment Rijkeboer, C-553/07, EU:C:2009:293,

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

DSGVO/BDSG , Article 15 paragraph 33; Schaffland/Holthaus in Schaffland/Wiltfang, GDPR, Article 15 GDPR paragraph 44; loc. A. Härting, CR 2019, 219). 136 (3) In

exercising their rights in bad faith. The AEPD brought forward Article 12(5) GDPR, as well as Article 7 of the Spanish Civil Code, that states that rights must

outside the material scope of the GDPR. Also, with regards to the definition of personal data from Article 4(1) GDPR, the DPA did not reach a firm conclusion

additional submissions regarding Article 83(3) GDPR (“Meta IE Submissions on Article 83(3) GDPR”). December 2021 On3December2021,theIESAshareditsDraftDecisionwiththeCSAs

more details. Article 2: Substantive scope Article 2.2.c: Exclusively personal or domestic activity Article 3: Territorial scope Article 4.1: Personal

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

and at least contain the information and measures referred to in Article 33 (2). 3 (b), (c) and (d). The deadline for compliance is January 7, 2020 . The

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

currently enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (judgments of the Court of Justice of 18 March 2010, C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08, Alassini and

to the GDPR, imposed a fine in the amount of € 10.000 and ordered Cavauto srl. to communicate the proposed changes in view of compliance with GDPR. The Italian

currently enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (judgments of the Court of Justice of 18 March 2010, C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08, Alassini and

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

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

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

company was not compliant with Article 13 GDPR. The CNPD held that the controller infringed Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and decided to: - impose

within the meaning of Article 26 GDPR, as determined in section 2.3. 135. The legal provision on data protection by design, Article 25 GDPR, states expressly

the municipality still breached Article 13 GDPR, they did have a valid legal basis for processing under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. On October 14, 2019, a kindergarten

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

the basis of article 6.1 e) GDPR read together with articles 5.2 GDPR and 24.1 GDPR. 3) Violation of Articles 12.1, 12.6, 13.1 and 13.2 GDPR: the Inspection

effect, the judgment in eDate Advertisin and Others, C-509/09 and C-161/10, EU:C2011:685, paragraph 45).C/ Jorge Juan 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob

articles L.111-1, L.111-2, L.111-3, L.221- 15, L.224-30, L.224-29, L.224-33, L.212-1, L.212-3, L.2141-1, L.211-1, L.232-1, R.631-3, L.621-1, L.621-2, L.621-7

the processing, together with the Privacy Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter c or e, cf. Article 6 No. 3, as of Arendal municipality is stated as a basis for

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

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

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

statute-barred is therefore sufficient legal reasons. c) A right to information from § 3 para. 3 and 4 VVG is also ruled out. This only refers to missing

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

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

reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also ordered the controller to erase the

instruction, under Article 28(1) GDPR. Thus, it has not been decided on whether or not MaCom could process information in accordance with Article 6(3)(a), (1)(a)

the GDPR. According to the defendant, this partner is thus not processor within the meaning of Article 4 (8) GDPR. Consequently, Article 28 (3) GDPR does

of 6 October 1982, C.I.L.F.I.T., C-283/81, EU:C:1982:335, para. 21; judgment of 15 September 2005, C-495/03, EU:C:2005:552, para. 33; judgment of 6 December

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

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

aforementioned data subjects would involve disproportionate effort under Article 34(3)(c) GDPR, the data controller gave public notice on its website informing

(see Article 19.2, Article 79.3 of the Basic Law) and ensures this protection also with regard to the Union Treaties (see Article 23.1 sentence 3 of the

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

above, the restricted panel concludes that Article 38.3 of the GDPR does not have been respected by the inspected. C. On the failure to provide information

proportionality requisite to the minimisation principle from Article 5(2)(c) GDPR. Also, according to Article 89(3) LOPDGDD, the use of audio recording systems in the

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

data laid down by Article 4(1) and (2) GDPR. The DPA then quotes ECJ, 11 December 2014, Ryneš, case C-212/13 (point 22), EDPB Guidelines 3/2019 on processing

Regulation) Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 5, Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph f, Article 17(1)(a), (c) and (d), Article 17(3)(a), Article 21(1) Judgments

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

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

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

identify the data subject and it shall justify the reasons, as per Article 12(3) GDPR. AEPD stated that, with the documentation provided, the data subject

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

with article 21 of the GDPR, oppose the processing for direct marketing purposes, with a statement which, based on the article 21 para. 3 of the GDPR must

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

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

be erased and thus also violates Article 17.1(c) AVG. 3.2. With regard to the infringement of Article 6.1 and Article 21.4 of the AVG 29. In its statement

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

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

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

obtained from them, as required under Article 14(1)(a) AVG and Article 14(2)(c)(e) and point (f) AVG; c. article 12 j° article 14 AVG, in view of the defendant

The DPA first requested an overview of such processing (equivalent to Article 30 GDPR) for purposes related to the Norwegian Execution of Sentences Act, details

obligation by providing the information required under Art. 14 (1) – (3) of the GDPR only in relation to the persons whose e-mail addresses it had at its

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

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

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

All this is in violation of Article 22 GDPR. The requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity have also not been met. 3.3. Furthermore, prior to the

violation of article 21 of the LSSICE, classified as serious in article 38.3.d) and c) of said rule, for the alleged infringement of article 48.1.b) of the

implement 1See e.g. PVN 2019-09 2FOR-2018-07-02-1107. 3 Prop. 56 LS (2017-2018), point 31.3.3.3 4controlling measures in their business. Regulations on

statutory legal obligation as stipulated under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, in this case prescribed by Article 229 of the Act on Road Traffic Safety. The Court

costs at law. 3.3. In the first instance, [the employee] put forward a substantiated defense seeking the rejection of Trigion's requests. 3.3.1. In the event

processing of in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) (a), and this is not based on any other legal basis; (c) the data subject opposes the

at least the information and measures referred to in article 33, paragraph 3, points b), c) and d). 3. The communication to the data subject referred to

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

The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. Article 32 of the RGPD "Security of treatment", establishes that: "1

the context of the implementation of Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 33. 33. The Litigation Chamber refers in this

requirements of Article 13 of the Regulation. C. On the breach relating to cookies 69. Article 82 of the Data Protection Act (Article 32.II in a wording

provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the RGPD; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

AEPD held that the telecoms company 's actions were a breach of Article 6(1) GDPR. Article 6(1) does not apply here because they failed to prove that they

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

information pursuant to Article 15 (1) of the GDPR relates to "personal data relating to an individual" pursuant to Article 4 No. 1 of the GDPR. In addition, the

controller had infringed Article 6(1) GDPR, in addition to violating the principle of data minimisation in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. Concerning the second issue

proceedings. 3.6.3. There is no dispute between the parties that the credit registration is based on article 4:32 Wft. This article implements Article 8 of Directive

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

December 2017, C ‑ 434/16, ECLI: EU: C: 2017: 994) and Breyer (CJEU 19 October 2016, C-582/14, ECLI: EU: C: 2016: 779) 16 Recital 26 of the GDPR: The principles

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

Articles 12.3 and 12.4 of the GDPR, as well as Article 15.1 of the GDPR, which in this case justifies taking a decision on the basis of article 95, § 1, 5°

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

security at all times”. 3.3.2Assessment From both article 13 of the Wb and article 32, first and second paragraph, of the GDPR it follows that the controller

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"

under national security as defined by Recital 16 GDPR, therefore, making Article 2(2)(a) GDPR applicable? 3) If question 2 is answered in the negative, does

side of Article 33, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the GDPR.objective side of the crime of Article 33, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the GDPR has been fulfilled. 2.3. On the

provisions of article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in the ar-C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 3 3/10Article 11 of Organic

force of the GDPR, the controller also sent him a separate revocation letter referring to the operational reasons under Article 38(3) GDPR, second sentence

processing plea 6: the right to object - Article 21(1) AVG plea 7: Article 12(3) TFEU - no infringement plea 8: Article 20 AVG-Right of transfer-the warning-not

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

lit. a and c as well as Art. 6 para. 1 of the GDPR. To 2): c) Article 50b (2) DSG 2000 (for the period prior to 25 May 2018) (d) Article 13(3) DSG (for

par le biais de la page de fans Facebook en question ; b. Article 21(1) j° c. Article 12(3) T&C, le deuxième défendeur n'ayant pas respecté le droit à un

for more details. Article 2: Material scope Article 2.2.c: Exclusively personal or domestic activity Article 3: Territorial scope Article 4.1: Personal data

(1) lit. d GDPR. The procedure was also compatible with the principle of purpose limitation within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 lit. b GDPR. In September

the CNIL 33. The rule for the territorial application of the requirements set out in Article 82 of the Data Protection Act is set out in Article 3, paragraph

circumstances in relation to Article 5 and Articles 32 and 33 GDPR. First, there was the duration of the infringement under Article 83(2)(a) GDPR; second, there was

Region Lombardia violated Article 5(1)(a)(c) GDPR due to the dissemination not being necessary as well as Article 6(1)(c)(e) GDPR due to the absence of suitable

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

exceptions. The exception of article 32 sub c UAVG does not apply to her. Argument 3 3.33. BREIN also states that the exception of Article 32 sub d UAVG applies

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

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

Protection Committee, foreseen in theSection 3 of Chapter VIl of the GDPR, must, under the terms of paragraph 3 of article 68 of theregulation, be “composed of

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

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

account of the defendant (Article 6.1. f) GDPR). The other legal grounds included in Article 6.1. points a), b), c), d) and e) GDPR are in present case not

Paragraph 1 and 2 DSG, Article 5 Letters a and c GDPR as well as Article 6 Paragraph 1 Letters c and f GDPR, as well as Article 1 Paragraph 3 Z 1 ZaDiG 2018,

violation of Article 5(1)(a), Article 12(1) and (2), Article 13(1)(c) and (2)(a) of the GDPR. II.4. Article 5 GDPR, Article 24 (1) GDPR and Article 25 (1) and

5. Failure to comply with Article 12 GDPR Information is considered easily accessible, within the meaning of Article 12 GDPR, if it is provided to the

portrait right. The paintiff also saw a violation of Articles 33, 35 and 36 of the GDPR, which the defendant has not contested. The Court found that the

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

market participants. Specifically, these are Sections 17(3), 3(5) ApBetrO, 43 AMG, 11(1) sentence 1 no. 3, no. 7 and no. 11 HWG, and Section 14(2) no. 1 BerufsO

held that a lawsuit under Article 79 GDPR regarding the alleged violation of Article 15 GDPR is indeed feasible. Article 79 GDPR is not limited to certain

principleof data minimization within the meaning of Article 5 (1) point c) GDPR.3. Breaches of the GDPR and the complainant's requests68. The Disputes Chamber

violation of the articles: -6.1 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR and article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

Articles 32 to 36 GDPR, including those regarding the notification of personal data breaches. In particular, pursuant to Article 33(2) GDPR in the event of

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

person concerned. ” 4.3.1- As regards respect for the principles of minimization and finality (article 5.1.c. and article 5.1.b of the GDPR) 24. In its capacity

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

sentence 1 lit. c, para. 3 sentence 1, Art. 86 GKG § 47 (1), § 52 (2), § 53 (2) no. 2, § 63 (3) sentence 1 no. 2, § 66 (3) sentence 3, § 68 (1) sentence

contravene Articles 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR? The AEPD found that GRUP BC S.L violated Article 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

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

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 34 GDPR or the data protection supervisory authority under Article 33 GDPR because the requirements of the legal definition in Article 4(12)

proceedings claimed on the basis of Article 1019h DCCP. GDPR Are the IP addresses personal data? Yes 3.3. Article 4 of the GDPR defines personal data as: “any

(1)(c) and (1)(e) of Article 6 GDPR. The violation of Article 2-ter of the Code is a direct consequence of the violation of Articles 5 and 6 GDPR. Finally

Consequently, they did not adhere to Article 33(5) GDPR, nor Article 33(1). The Norwegian DPA held that Trumf had breached Article 33(1) for failing to notify them

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

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

search the following urls: 1. *** URL.1 2. *** URL.2 3. *** URL.3 SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of the LOPDGDD, which has provided for a mechanism

interests in accordance with the provisions from article 5-bis "(article 5, paragraph 2, of legislative decree no. 33/2013). In relation to the profiles of competence

33(3)(b), Article 33(3)(c), and Article 33(3)(d), as Article 34(2) GDPR prescribes. Therefore, the DPA decided to impose an administrative fine pursuant to

which the person responsible is subject. In contrast to Article 6 (1) (b) GDPR, Article 6 (1) (c) GDPR with “legal obligation” does not mean a contractual

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

contain at least the information and measures referred to in Art. 33 paragraph 3 it. b), c) and d) of Regulation 2016/679, i.e .: a) the name and contact

the request - thereby infringing Article 12(3) of the GDPR, as well as 11 §3, 11/1 §3, 11/2 §3 and 11/3 §3 of the Act of 3 August 2012. With regard to the

violations (Article 33 of Regulation 2016/679), procedures for reporting data protection breaches to the supervisory authority (Article 33 (3) of Regulation

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

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

on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, as the disclosure was not necessary for the performance of the telecommunication contract. Concerning Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the

edition 2020, GDPR Art. 33 para. 81 acc. Art. 33 Para. I S. I GDPR, in the event of a violation of the protection of personal data, the person responsible

recognized as personal data - it was not required to notify anyone (Article 33 (1) and Article 34 (3) (a) and (b)). ) ”Of Regulation 2016/2019. In addition, the

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

the Junta de Extremadura. It adds that the representative of B.B.B. and C.C.C. Is daughter of both, and that the “mayor's office has already granted the

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

images to Instagram are: A.A.A., born 07/25/2005. B.B.B., born on 05/02/2006 C.C.C., born 11/19/2005 2. That, according to the Judicial Police, the video published

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

hereinafter: GDPR), OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, p. 1.: Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter c, Article 6, Article 12 Paragraph 3, Article 51 Paragraph 1

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

Protection Regulation. 3.2.3. Technical and organizational measures 3.2.3.1. Security of the patient information system 26.11.2017–13.3.2019 According to the

controller violated Article 33(1) GDPR by not notifying the DPA of the data breach. Consequently, the DPA issued a fine of approximately €3,492 (16,000 PLN)

controller violated Article 6 GDPR because it had no legal basis to disclose the email addresses. It reasoned that Article 6(1)(a) GDPR was not applicable

the light of Article 13 of the AVG. In this respect, the Inspectorate refers to column 3 of the table below.3 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Privacy policy

2, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3

complaint lodged under Article 77 of the GDPR, or proceedings based on Article 78(1) of the GDPR, is not precluded by the GDPR or any other provision of

applicable (cf. Article 99(1) and (3) AVG). As of that date, the AVG is binding and directly applicable in every Member State (Article 99(3) AVG), i.e.: irrespective

payment to be appropriate. 3. Findings 3.1 Findings prior to the on-site visit of 18 June 2018 Menzis sent documents to the AP on 3 and 29 May 2018 to demonstrate

controller failed to respect its notification duty under Article 33(1) and Article 33(5). Article 34 was not vioated, as, the data subject was already informed

Fundamental Rights (Article 8 (1) in conjunction with Article 8 (3) CFR) is protected by Article 77 (1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 77 (1) CFR. Art.

violation of personal data. 57 (3) The content required under Article 34 Paragraph 2, 33 Paragraph 3 Letters b, c and d GDPR was also included. 58 (a) The

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

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

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

the GDPR and DPA 2018. They are obliged by Article 5(2) of the GDPR to adhere to the data processing principle set out in Article 5(1). 8. Article 5(1)(f)

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

(documentation obligation Article 33, paragraph 5 GDPR and risk-based approach Article 32 GDPR) and the obligation to report to the GBA (Article 33 GDPR): the defendant

by the GDPR, on the other, Article 28, paragraph 3 of the GDPR does not provide any indication regarding the obligation to conclude a deed of appointment

2019 Pursuant to article 58, second paragraph, opening words and article 83, fifth paragraph, of the GDPR, read in in connection with article 14, third paragraph

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

supervisory authority (i.e. Article 33 (1 ) of the GDPR) and to notify the data subjects of breach of (Article 34 (1-2) of the GDPR), it would be necessary

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

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

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)

Garante found a violation of the processing principle under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR related to the security of processing which was compromised

Data Authority2019 53 3.3Penaltyforviolatingthesecurityofprocessing 53 3.3.1 Nature, seriousness and duration of the infringement 54 3.3.2 Negligent nature

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

the provisions of article 6 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 14/20 Article 4 of the same GDPR defines "processing"

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

violated the principles of data protection and breached the GDPR (article 5(1)(a) and (c) and 6 GDPR) as well as the Legislative Decree no. 196 of 30 June 2003

materia di protezione dei dati personali”; and of Article 6(1)(c), Article 6(1)(e), Article 6(2) and Article 6(3)(b). The Italian DPA did not impose a fine because

b) and c); 6, par. 1, lett. c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, lett. b); 37, para. 1 and 7, of the GDPR; as well as art. 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the

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

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 Data

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

legal basis for their processing in article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However, according to article 17(1)(c) and article 21(1) GDPR, upon receiving an erasure request

6(1)(b), 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) deemed itself competent under Article 58(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 47 of the Spanish Data

and 9(1) GDPR; b) the controller failed to adequately inform data subjects about the processing of their data, in violation of Article 14 GDPR; c) the controller

section 3.3 >>.<< 3.3. Informed manifestation of willThe GDPR reinforces the requirement that consent must be informed. In accordance with theArticle 5 of

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

workers. Therefore, the DPA found a violation of Article 5 GDPR, Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 9 GDPR. The duration of the illegal data dissemination

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

fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as well as the principle of data minimisation pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, since they did not process

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

February 2018, 3 Bf 107/17, judgment of 8 February 2018, 3 Bf 107/17, judgment of 8 February 2018, 3 Bf 107/17, judgment of 8 February 2018, 3 Bf 107/17).

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

ordinary courts (Article 34 GG, Article 40(2) VwGO). Moreover, the Court considered the reference to Article 79(2) GDPR from Article 82(6) GDPR, and the fact

and Section 2 of the German Civil Code in conjunction with Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR, the plaintiff is also not entitled to an injunctive relief

based on Article 6.1.f) of the GDPR, but not for all processing based on this article. […] 73 74Investigation report, page 22, point 4.4.2.3.3. WP 260 rev

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

incorrect applies Article 12.3 of the AVG. However, this is not correct. 33. Article 12.3 of the GDPR reads (in its relevant parts): ''Art. 12.3 The controller

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

obligation as referred to in Article 33 or 34 of the Wbp. 3. Telephone numbers for two-factor authentication (claim a.i.3) 11.60. Claim a.i.3 relates to the use

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

Italian DPA concluded that the controller breached Article 5 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Article 9 GDPR and Articles 2-ter as well as 2-septies (8) of the

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

writing (cf. paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 28 of the GDPR), verification of the requirements set out in article 28 of the GDPR it must be substantive and

of Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 14 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR, Article 28 GDPR, Article 32 GDPR and Article 33 GDPR, as well as of Article L. 34-5

in Article 34(2) of Regulation 2016/679, i.e. it does not contain the information referred to in Article 34(2) in conjunction with Article 33(3)(c) of

implications. 5.3. Relevant practice related to the Personal Data Regulations § 4-3 - «factual need» According to the Personal Data Regulations § 4-3, credit assessment

concerned the nature of the data protection incident, and at least Article 33(3)(b), (c) and (d) must be disclosed information and measures mentioned in

that Article 15(1) and 15(3) GDPR do not contain two independent rights but a single right. Therefore, according to the court, Article 15(3) GDPR only

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

is maintained under Article 6.1 b) to f) of the GDPR and therefore in Article 6.1.c) invoked in the species. Article 6.1 of the GDPR in fact reproduces

according to Article 9, paragraph 2, GDPR. The administrative violation would affect Article 5, paragraph one, letters a, b and c and Article 9, paragraph

The DPA found violations of Articles 5(1)(a)(c)(f), 9, 25(1)(2) and issued a fine of 25,000 euros under Article 83. An advertising billboard depicted a first

Hospital notified the Italian DPA of a personal data breach pursuant to Article 33 GDPR. The hospital accidentally sent to all the patients involved in a clinical

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

the principles of lawfulness (article 6.1. of the GDPR) and minimization (article 5.1.c) of the GDPR) enshrined in the GDPR. 2. On May 25, 2023, the complainant

Violation of article 35 of the GDPR................................................ ...................36 8.2. Violation of article 9 of the GDPR.........

the footage (3 seconds), that it did not show any faces or the theft itself, did not concern any personal data as per Article 9 GDPR or Article 10 and was

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

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

adequacy decision in accordance with Article 45 Para. 3 GDPR nor appropriate guarantees in accordance with Article 46 GDPR is only permitted if it is necessary

and 3 January 2022, Rompetrol Downstream SRL (the controller) notified the Romanian DPA of several data breaches, in accordance with Article 33 GDPR. Following

importance of monitoring to detecting 3 See,for exampleMarriott’s SecRepresentationparas2.2(b)-(c3.1(b)3.8-3.13and 3.25-3.29. ee 29 or responding to attacks

national court (Article 267 TFEU and C-567/20, EU: C:2022:352, paragraph 45 and case-law cited there). Question 1: Does Article 5(1)(b) GDPR allow a controller

arising from Article 15 of the GDPR. 3. On the breach relating to the obligation to respect the right of opposition (article 21 of the GDPR) 45. The rapporteur

reasons, article 780, 3° of the Judicial Code, article 149 of the Constitution and article 6 of the ECHR - the pleas not explicitly stated. 17.3.3. The Procurement

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

to Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR. In addition, there is a violation of the principle of data minimization pursuant to Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter c GDPR. The

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

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

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

is done using a water meter and its readout. Article 12(5) GDPR in conjunction with Article 18(1)(d) GDPR does not prevent the charging of an administrative

“legal obligation” or “public interest” according to Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. Share your comment here! Share blogs or news articles

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

(CSC N° 1/013/2020) is ordered. Article 3. The immediate execution of this judgment is ordered. Article 4. Exhibits A, B, C, D and the unredacted version

were in violation of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR, but the DPA dismissed its previous finding of the Article 5(1)(b) GDPR violation. The DPA

receiving disability pension, in breach of Article 5(1)(c), Article 5(1)(e), Article 6(1), and Article 9(2) GDPR. The Norwegian Public Service Pension Fund

so Article 48 GDPR does not apply. Moreover, the Court considered that none of the conditions referred to in Article 49(1) and Article 49(2) GDPR is fulfilled

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

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

compliance with the data minimisation principle laid down in Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR. 33. In addition, personal data concerning health will be processed

under Article 33 of the GDPR. (No. 37) (editorial principle) 3. Non-material damage that can be compensated for under Article 82 (1) of the GDPR must at

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

controller €3,940,000 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

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

obligations in accordance with Article 26 of the GDPR. 1.3. Processing of personal data included in the scope of this methodology 1.3.1. Only processing of personal

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

violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and a fine of €100,000 for the violation of Article 37 GDPR. The DPA issued a reprimand for the violations of Article 5(1)(e)

withdrawal (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter c) of the Regulation); 4) as a mitigating factor to be taken into consideration when setting the fine (Article 83,

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

of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ("UK GDPR"). 2. This notice explains the Commissioner's reasons for that opinion. 3. A Preliminary

made to the GDPR, it follows that the "consent" provided for in Article 5, paragraph 3, of the "ePrivacy" directive as transposed in article 82 of the "Informatique

30 DSG with Article 83 GDPR, to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. This case law has a wide-ranging impact on GDPR-fines in Austria

it and the applicants, i.e. on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. However, pursuant to Article 17(3)(e) GDPR, the right to request from the controller the

read Article 35 GDPR in line with Article 77 GDPR. The DPA interpreted the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority under Article 77 GDPR 

interpretation of the GDPR. Second, the court argued with the drafting history of the GDPR which connects Article 15(3) GDPR to Article 20(1) GDPR, showing that

basis of consent, Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. In particular, Article 6 (1) (c) (legal obligation of the controller and Article 6 (1) (e) GDPR (public interest)

been changed. § 33 DSG 2000 contained a clear reversal of the burden of proof (only) for fault. § Article 33.3 of the DSG 2000 read "(3) The client may

5(1)(a) and 5(1)(f) GDPR, as well as Article 9 GDPR related to the processing of special categories of personal data, and Article 32 GDPR on the security of

the company. Lastly, The DPA found a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR regarding the sharing of patient clinical data

2019 - C-136/17 - [GC et al.] Rn. 57; Baker in Kühling/Buchner GDPR 3rd edition Art. 13 Rn. 68). Even if Article 17 Paragraph 3 Letter e of the GDPR did not

selection process, taking the storage limitation principle under Article 5(1)(e) GDPR into consideration. A data subject had entered a public competition

termination. Article 5(1)(c) was therefore also violated. The DPA concluded that Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c) and 6(1) were violated and pursuant Article 58(2)(c) ,

defined in Article 4(15) GDPR. For the reasons stated above, the DPA found the controller in violation of Article 5 GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR

access under Article 15 GDPR and for violating the principles of data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR), confidentiality (Article 5(1)(f) GDPR) and the controller’s

notion of personal data as defined in Article 4.1) GDPR, which are processed within the meaning of Article 2. 1 GDPR. Not just any whole or in part automated

violated Article 14 and Article 15 GDPR, since the controller did not give exact information where they had obtained the email-address from (Article 14(2)(f)

are present (Article 13 paragraph 1 lit. a (2nd alternative), lit. b, d, e, f, Article 13 paragraph 2 lit. c, f and Article 13 paragraph 3). Since nothing

pursuant to Article 22 GDPR, but only 'light profiling' under Article 4(4) GDPR. Therefore, the controller claimed that Article 15(1)(h) GDPR did not apply

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

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

European Court of Justice in the pending cases C-189/22, C-741/21, C-687/21, C-667/21, C-340 /21 and C-307/22. 24With regard to the parties' further submissions

sense of Article 82(1) GDPR, because the controller unlawfully disclosed the data to its customers. The court also held that under Article 82 GDPR the violation

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

violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, a) and Article 6, paragraph 1 of the GDPR; - With regard to defendant 2: to dismiss, pursuant to article 95, §1, 3° of the

provided for in Article 9 of the GDPR or Article 51 of the ZZLD. 30 Under Article 27 of the ZMVR, data recorded by the police pursuant to Article 68 of that

scope of Article 9(1) GDPR. Since Article 9 GDPR was not applicable, the DPA examined the lawfulness of the processing under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR which was

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

processing and right to data portability; c) where the processing is based on Article 6 (1) (a) or on Article 9, paragraph 2 (a), the existence of the right

to enable two-factor authentication in their systems, cf. Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, cf. Article 32(1)(b). Second, the DPA fined the municipality about €158

offer services to data subjects in the EU (Article 3(2)(a) GDPR). The DPA concluded that Article 3(2)(b) GDPR was also not applicable. The DPA mentioned

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

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

are subject to the GDPR pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of this Regulation. B. On the competence of the CNIL 22. Article 55(1) of the GDPR provides that "each

pursuant to Article 77 GDPR. The DPA did not consider the processor’s actions in determining that the controller violated Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR

accordance with Article 8(3) of the Charter and Article 51(1) and 57(1)(a) GDPR, national DPAs are responsible for monitoring compliance with the GDPR (§35 of