Search results

(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)

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

violation of Article 33(5) GDPR The Draft Decision of the DPC found that TIC did not comply with its obligations under Article 33(5) GDPR to document the

had complied with its obligations under Article 33(1) but as well with Article 33(5). In relation to Article 33(1), the DPC view was that, on the basis

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

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

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

breach of the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR and Article 33(5) GDPR. Article 5(2) GDPR establishes the principle of accountability which

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

information set out in Article 5 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. Articles 5 (1) (f), 5 (2), 24 (1), 25 (1), 32 (1) and (2), 33 (1) and (5), 34 (1) and 35

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

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

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

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 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

presenting the principles of data processing of Article 5(1) GDPR, underlined that, based on Article 5(2) GDPR, it is the data processor's responsibility to

found 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

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

width="15%"><select class="newMainText" id=_piref33_15473_33_15453_15453.etos name=_piref33_15473_33_15453_15453.etos style="width:140px;" ><option value="-1"

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)

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

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,

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

regarding Articles 5(1)(b) GDPR and 5(1)(e) GDPR and held that national courts had to determine, using the factors of Article 6(4) GDPR, whether further

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

Appeals Board assessed if a fine could be imposed as per Article 83(5) GDPR, cf. Article 83(2) GDPR, and in which case, how large it should be. The Board

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

municipality could not rely on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR as a legal basis. This made the processing also unlawful under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. The HDPA fined the municipality

in due time according to Article 33 GDPR; and if it had provided the data subject the information required by Article 34 GDPR regarding the data breach

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

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

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

personal data by bank to the data subject's wife under Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR and Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR. An additional €50,000 was added for the violation

observations, which, in accordance with Article 54(1)(b), (3) and (4), (4) and (4), (5) and (5), (5) and (5), (5) and (5), (5) and (6). 2 of the Rules of Procedure

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

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

legally relevant interests in accordance with Article 5-bis" (Article 5, paragraph 2, Legislative Decree no. 33/2013). In relation to the profiles of competence

security . 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

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

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

the 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

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

not 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

that the letter in question referred to Article 58(1)(a) of the GDPR and Article 5:16 in conjunction with Article 5:17 of the Awb does not make this any different

breach of its 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

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

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

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

under Article 4(12) GDPR. Second, the AP found that PVV Overijssel was obliged to notify the data breach to the AP within 72 hours pursuant to Article 33(1)

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

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

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

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

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

conjunction with article 33 GDPR. The Garante examined the notification by the university “la Sapienza” of the existence of a data breach occurred via a whistleblowing

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

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 Guarantee

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

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

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

itself, that the information and measures mentioned in Article 33(1)(b) to Article 33(1)(d) GDPR must also be communicated to the data subject. However

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

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

processed 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

obligations arising from Article 32 of the GDPR. D. On the failure to document any personal data breach 72. According to Article 33(5) of the GDPR: "The controller

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

interested 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

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

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 Guarantee

of personal data of data subjects guaranteed by Article 44 GDPR and consequently breached Article 44 GDPR. The DPA issued a fine of 300,000 SEK (approx.

registered office in G. Article. 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

the infringements of Articles 32 and 33 GDPR as "serious" offences, whilst the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR was considered a "very serious" offence

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

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)

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

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

violation of Article 32(1) GDPR due to the scope of the data mishandling and the sensitivity of the subject. Moreover, the Family Court violated Article 28(3)

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

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

consumer loans, ie. Article 5 (now k) Article 5 and Article 10. which stipulate that the consumer's credit rating is assessed before a consumer loan is granted

Municipality". In any case, it should be noted that Article 15 of Legislative Decree no. 33 of March 14, 2013, no. 33 regulates the publication obligations concerning

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

of Articles 5-1 e), 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 32 and 33 of the RGPD, Article L34-5 of the French Post and Electronic Communications Code and Article 82 (formerly

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

municipality had violated Articles 5 and 6 GDPR by publishing personal data on their webpage without a legal basis, and Articles 5 and 32(1)(b) by failing to implement

persons pursuant to Article 34(1) GDPR. The Danish DPA found that Intervare did not go through with a proper assessment pursuant to Article 34(1), as it had

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph 1 or Article 2 1 Principal is entitled to claim damages against the person responsible or against the processor under Article 82 of the DSGVO

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

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

provisions of Article 5(1)(a) and Articles 13 and 14 GDPR. Furthermore, the defendant violated the principle of integrity and confidentiality from Art. 5 Para.

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Disputes Chamber. 4 Cf. criterion A.5. in the dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber. 5 Article 15.3 GDPR: “The right to obtain a copy referred to

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

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

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

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

data breaches from more than twenty Danish banks in accordance with Article 33 GDPR. The reported data breaches concern the accidental disclosure of personal

The case did not fall under the scope of the GDPR, as the GPS tracking started and ended before the GDPR was applicable (08. 05. 2017 until 31. 01. 2018)

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

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

notified Datatilsynet of several personal data breaches pursuant to Article 33 GDPR concerning the use of the Vigilo-app. Through the use of the app, biological

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

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

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

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

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

infringes the basic data protection regulation depends on Art. 5 ff. DSGVO. Under Article 5(1)(a) DSGVO, personal data must be processed in a lawful manner

[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

other two conditions of Article 6 (1) (f) of the GDPR are not met. (26) The second condition of Article 6 (1) (f) of the GDPR is that the processing of

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

data 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

relation to contraventions of the UK-GDPR, section 168 DPA 2018 provides that "non-material damage" in Article 82 GDPR includes distress. In relation to breaches

was outdated and was no longer of importance to society. Pursuant to Article 17(1) GDPR, the data subject had requested Google LLC (the controller) to remove

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

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

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

processing was therefore in breach of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR. The DPA also ruled out Article 6(1)(f) on the grounds of domestic law:

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

receive information on the outcome of the complaint under Article 77(2) GDPR and Article 57(1)(f) GDPR. The case was therefore returned to the DPA for an assessment

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 October

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

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

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

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

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

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

did not fulfill the transparency obligations following from Article 5(1)(a) and 12(1) GDPR for public notices. Share your comments articles here! Share

persons pursuant to Article 34(1) GDPR. The Danish DPA found that Nemlig did not go through with a proper assessment pursuant to Article 34(1), as it had

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

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

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

Privacy Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter f for this processing. Our legal basis for decisions on reprimands is the Privacy Ordinance, Article 58, No. 2, letter

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

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

cites Articles 5(1)(b) and (e), 9(2)(j), 89(1) GDPR and Section 7(1)(1) and (2)(1) GDPR. In particular, it follows from Article 9(2)(j) GDPR that the processing

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

infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR, and to take into account the additional infringement of the principle of fairness in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR in its adoption

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

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

the performance of a contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) and for legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Article 6(1)(b) GDPR In its original draft decision

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

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

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

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

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

specific categories of information in Article 8 (1) and (5) of Directive 95/46 or in Article 9 (1), Article 10 (1) and Article 10 of Regulation 2016/679, the

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

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

controller) under Article 33 GDPR. On the 7 December 2023, the Norwegian DPA imposed a reprimand on the municipality under Article 58(2)(b) GDPR, for processing

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

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

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

and annulled that decision, in so far as it did not award any compensation. 5. 5. [Appellant] claims to be entitled to higher compensation than € 300.00.

education) complied with Article 5(1)(c) of the Data Protection Regulation (minimization of data) and the provisions of Article 5(2) and Article 25(1) and (2) when

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

time, which is a violation of the GDPR. As to the claim for damages, the CoS notes that though Article 82(1) of the GDPR states that full compensation for

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

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

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

the basis of Article 58, paragraph 2, point b) GDPR and Article 100, §1, 5 ° WOG to be reprimanded for the infringement of Article 25 (1) GDPR; b. on the

transparency, cf. Article 5(1)(a), and accuracy, cf. Article (5)(1)(d), they hadn't recorded the processing activity as required in Article 30, hadn't conducted

this procedure. C. On the applicable law 33. The first paragraph of Article 87 of the Data Protection Act, Article I of Title III of the Act provides: this

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

infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR (440), and to take into account the additional infringement of the principle of fairness in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR in its adoption

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

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

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

***URL. SECOND: Dated May 20, 2019, in accordance with Article 65.4 of the Organic Law 3/2018 of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital

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

disproportionate pursuant to Art. 14 par. 5 lit. b GDPR? The President of UODO found that: 1) The applicable provision is the Art. 14 GDPR since the data controller collects

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

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

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

disclosing personal data from a surveillance footage, thus breaching Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6. The company appealed to the Norwegian Privacy Appeals Board

controller violated Articles 5(1)(f), 5(2), 24 and 32 GDPR. Moreover, the DPA noted that the controller violated Article 33 GDPR by not notifying the DPA of

request under Article 21 GDPR can be made at any time and several times. It also found that a provisional measure can be granted under Article 21 GDPR if an urgent

“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

Articles 5(1)(a), (c), (2), 6, 9 and 33 GDPR. The ANSPDCP especially found that legitimate interest is not a legal basis under Article 9 GDPR and that

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

technical measures to prevent the breach in violation of Article 5(1)(f), Article 33 and Article 34 GDPR. The data breach also revealed that personal and special

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

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

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

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

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)

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

accordance with Article 33(3) GDPR. In this respect, the DPA noted that the controller failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 33(1) GDPR because it did

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

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

appears to refer only to Article 5(1)(f) UK GDPR, but does not seem to make any reference to or comments on Article 33(1) UK GDPR, which is the equivalent

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

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

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

reference to Article 3.5 of an artist's contract (document 2 of the The applicants rely - among other things with reference to Article 3.5 of an artist's

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

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

Paragraph 1 Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and comply with all the principles of para. Article 8 of the Act, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 5 of the Regulation

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

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

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

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

basis under Article 6 GDPR to collect and process vehicle registration numbers. The legal basis is a statutory obligation prescribed by Article 229 of the

on the defendants for the infringements of the Articles 5.1.f, 5.2, 24, 32, 33.1 and 5, 34.1 GDPR." By decision of 19 May 2021, the Disputes Chamber withdrew

of data has been made in advance. 3.2. Article 33 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 33 (1) of the Regulation 1, that the data controller

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

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)

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

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

risk analysis. Therefore, the DPC found a violation of Article 25(1), 25(2), 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(f) GDPR, ordered Meta to comply with the provisions and imposed

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

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 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

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

delay. It also issued a reprimand in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR and Article Article 100, §1, 5° WOG in addition to these corrective measures. It

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

violation of the general right of personality under Article 1.1, Article 2.1 of the Basic Law (Article 7, Article 8 of the Basic Law) was to be taken into account

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

basis pursuant to Article 6 GDPR. In the present judgement there seems to be a tension between the principle of accuracy (Article 5(1)(d) GDPR) and the principle

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

es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/33 -9.2 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR and article 72.1.e) of the LOPDGDD. “ "For the purposes

the Arnhem Court of Appeal. 2.5. The text of the article about [A] on the black list of doctors is given below. The article is accompanied by a picture of

accordance with Article 33 AVG; - on the basis of Article 100, § 1, 5° WOG, issue a reprimand against the defendant for the infringement of Articles 5, 6 and 4

177/22), but there is already no violation of the GDPR. Para. 60 There is no violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR (regarding the following: LG Aachen judgment

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

comply with Article 33 GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. Consequently, it issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. First, the

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

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

breach (Article 83 (2) (h) of Regulation 2016/679) - about the infringements being the subject of this proceeding (Article 33 (1) and Article 34 (1) 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

The Polish DPA held that a medical facility violated Articles 33(1) and 34(1) GDPR by not notifying the DPA and the data subject of a data breach after

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, the

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

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

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

breached Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Therefore, the DPA handed down a 'call to order' against the joint controllers for breaching Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, and no

relationship between Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code and Article 10 of the GDPR and the exceptional provisions of Articles 32 and 33 of the UAVG. The

(hereinafter referred to as GDPR); and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance with the provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Agency Spanish

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

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

concerned an alleged violation of the applicant's right of erasure (Article 17 GDPR). However, the conflicting information had been anonymized by the webmaster

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

violated Article 33(1) GDPR. Moreover, it violated Article 34(1) GDPR since it did not provide the data subjects with the information listed in Article 33(3)(b)

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

Federal Law Gazette I No. 33/2013 VwGG § 33 valid from 03/01/2013 to 12/31/2013 last changed by BGBl. I No. 33/2013 VwGG § 33 valid from 07/01/2008 to 02/28/2013

various parts of Article 5 GDPR have been violated, namely Article 5 paragraph 1 sub b (purpose limitation) and Article 5 paragraph 1 sub f (integrity

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

Datatilsynet hold that the Municipality of Odense infringed Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR due to delayed answers to access requests. The Datatilsynet

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

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

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

according to Article 15 GDPR, which has been directly applicable since May 25, 2018 (Article 99 (2) GDPR). According to Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the person

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

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

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

processing Chain of standards: GDPR Art. 5 Paragraph 1 Letter f Guiding principle: Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter f of the GDPR supplements the aspect of confidentiality

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

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)

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

in his e-mail dated 5 July 2019. By doing so, the data subject invokes his right under Article 17 of the AVG. 27. Pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) AVG, the data

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

set out in Articles 5(1)(f) and 9 GDPR. Pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83(5) GDPR, the DPA issued an administrative sanction of €5,000. Considering that

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 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

observations. Firstly, the right to be forgotten can be found in Article 17 GDPR and Article 93 of the LOPDGDD, the Spanish data protection law. It establishes

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

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

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

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

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

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

this respect. Hence, the controller argued that it did not violate Article 33(1) GDPR. The DPA held that the data breach entailed a risk of violating the

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

Thus, the AEPD understood that the defendant has infringed Article 7 of the GDPR and Article 6(3) of the Spanish Law on Data Protection and Digital Rights

solution "SelvBooking" was developed. 3.2. Article 33 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 33 (1) of the Regulation 1, that the data controller

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

ofcombined provisions of Articles 5, paragraph 1 to 1. c) and article 5, paragraph 1 al. f) with article83, paragraph 5, al. a), the General Data Protection

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

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

Court found that customers’ order data is health data and fall within Article 9(1) GDPR. Amazon does not collect health data stricto sensu but it can draw

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

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

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

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

membership are in principle prohibited (article 9.1 of the RGPD). The second paragraph of the However, the same article provides for a series of exceptions

the complainant's name would be an excessive burden according to Article 12 (5) GDPR. The prison officer then complained before the DPA about the Prison

Articles 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

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

of article 32, paragraph 1, GDPR further elaborated in article 32, paragraph 2, subaenk, VIS Regulation. 2.5AccessrightstoNVISandstaffprofiles 2.5.1Legal

Ordinance, Article 4, No. 7 for the person in question the credit check made by complainants. 5. Legal basis for obtaining credit information 5.1. In particular

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

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

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

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

amounts to one time € 50,000.00 is € 50,000.00. €50.000,00. Pursuant to Article 5:33 of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb), a penalty payment shall

committed by, thus Article 5 (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation violation is the higher maximum amount according to Article 83 (5) of the regulation

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

provided information for the purpose of making the assessment, cf. Article 5 (i) Act no. 33/2013, carried out its assessment on the basis of tax register information

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

with Article 6 GDPR and the principles of Article 5(1) GDPR, which also included the obligation to uphold appropriate security standards (Article 5(1)(f)

penalty, are as follows: Article 83 paragraph 1, 2 and 5 lit. a GDPR:Article 83, paragraph ,, 2 and 5 lit. a, GDPR: "Article 83 General conditions for

indeed a right of access under Article 15 GDPR in all taxation matters despite not being a natural person, in accordance with §2a(5) of the Abgabenordnung (national

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

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

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

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

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

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 15 of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5 b) of the RGPD. Against the initial agreement, no

paragraph of Article 5 of ZKme-11, the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Rulebook on RKG2 and point a) of the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Rulebook

Schantz, in: BeckOK Datenschutzrecht, 37th Ed., As of May 1st, 2020, Article 5 GDPR, Rn. 5) .27 The collection and processing of the date of birth in the ordering

court emphasised that some scholars even apply Article 14(5)(b) GDPR analogously to Article 15(1) GDPR even though it did not create an analogy itself

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

invoked the excessiveness of the request under Article 12(5) GDPR alleging that the data subject uses Article 15 GDPR only to verify the validity of the premium

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

must satisfy the basic requirements of paragraph 1. Article 8 Act no. 90/2018, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 5 of the regulation. This includes, among other things

of personal data from a surveillance footage, thus breaching Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6. The complainant argued that the size of the administrative

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

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

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

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

under Article 77(1) GDPR and subsequently the right of judicial remedy against the supervisory authority under Article 78(1) GDPR. Article 79 (1) GDPR provides

out a breach of Article 32 GDPR since the concerned data, a phone number used by a company, was not "personal" under Article 4(1) GDPR. On 17 January 2023

introduction) the GDPR. 14.5. Article 11.7a Tw has been in force since 5 June 2012 (and amended in 2013, 2015 and 2018). Previously, Article 4.1 of the Decree

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

proceedings. 2.5 Subsequently, [appellants] submitted various requests to ABN AMRO relating to the provision of information. 2.6 By letter of 5 March 2018

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

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

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

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

of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance with the provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Agency Spanish

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

personal data and on the free movement of such data (the GDPR) provides, in particular in Article 5, point 2, that the data controller must be able to demonstrate

Articles 5, 13, 14 GDPR), also the defendant clearly and in ease language pointed to the default settings, so no breach of Article 25 GDPR or Article 32 GDPR

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

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

AEPD concluded that the controller likely violated Articles 5(1)(c), 5(1)(f), 27, 32 and 33 GDPR. With regard to the data minimisation violation, the AEPD

fair, lawful nor transparent. It is therefore in violation of Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. The ICO concluded that EML did not identify a lawful basis to

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

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

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

1 GDPR sets out the general provisions. Article 5 of Chapter I GDPR sets out the principles relating to the processing of personal data. Article 5(1) lists

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

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

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

applicable to the controller, including Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR. As a matter of fact, Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR set general principles and conditions of

adequacy decision (Article 45 GDPR) nor suitable guarantees (Article 46 GDPR) are in place for the third country concerned, cf. Article 49 Paragraph 1 Sentence

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

liability in Article 5 no. 2, cf. Article 5 no. 1 letter f, as it has a special duty on it controllers to comply with the principles set out in Article 5. b) whether

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements for formal reasoning (in particular Article 3(1)(a) of the EC Treaty) formal motivation (in particular Article 5 of the law of 17 June 2013), obligation

Articles 5(1)(a), 6 and 7 GDPR. The DPA finally held that the controller violated the principles of fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) because

the Disputes Chamber judges that it is possible Article 5.1.a), Article 5.1.b) and Article 6.1 of the GDPR has been infringed. II.2. The basic principle

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

personal data in accordance with the basic principles of Article 5 of the GDPR. Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR states that personal data must be processed in a manner

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

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

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

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

analogously in conjunction with Article 79(1) and Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. 31 Pursuant to Article 79(1) of the GDPR, every data subject shall have the

transmission as a precautionary measure under Article 21 GDPR and requested a restriction of processing under Article 18 GDPR. Additionally, the data subject complained

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

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

an assessment would not comply with Article 5. Act no. 33/2013 and contrary to the comments in the comments on Article 10. the bill that became the law that

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°