Search results

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

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)

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

art. 33 sec. 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 and 2 of Regulation 2016/679. 2) Intentional or unintentional nature of the breach (Article 83(2)(b) of Regulation 2016/679)

accordance with Article 32 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. First 3.2. Article 32 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation 2 Article 32 (2) of the Regulation

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

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

violated Article 34(2) GDPR, because he only informed the data subject of the alleged data loss. However, the information obligations of Article 34 GDPR provide

of Article 34(1) GDPR. In addition, the DPA ordered the bank to notify the breach to all the affected data subjects in accordance with Article 34(2) GDPR

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)

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! Share blogs

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

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

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

of enforcing the GDPR in Spain. Its head office is in Madrid. The requirement to have a data protection authority stems from Article 44 of the Spanish

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

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 32 GDPR, p. 636 (Oxford University Press 2020). Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 32 GDPR, margin number

(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

functions, a permissive function (Article 88(1) GDPR) and a conditional function (Article 88(2) GDPR). While Article 88(2) GDPR determines the scope of the opening

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

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

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

requirements of Article 34 (2) GDPR. If one sets too strict requirements for promptness within the framework of Article 34 Para. 1 GDPR, this would run

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

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

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

Beck, 2018, 2nd edition). We refer, in that respect, to the Commentary on Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023)

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

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

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

decision". Similar to the ex-ante information in Article 13(2)(f) and 14(2)(f) GDPR, Article 15(2) GDPR requires that in case the controller transfers data

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

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

contrast to Article 23(1)(e) GDPR, which sets out strict requirements for the Union or Member State's law restricting GDPR rights, Article 18(2) GDPR does not

entering the contract, Article 22(2)(a) GDPR does not mention this additional aspect. In any case, the application of Article 22(2)(a) GDPR is always subjected

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

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

information as outlined in Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR (see above). Article 26(2) of the GDPR emphasizes the significance of these specific obligations

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

Journal of the European Union. 2. It shall apply from 25 May 2018. There is no relevant recital for Article 99 GDPR. Article 99 GDPR sets out the dates of the

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

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

one of the 'other administrative or non-judicial' remedies, which Article 78(2) GDPR refers to. If the DPA decides to uphold their decision, they will

date of effect under Article 94 GDPR. In order to ensure a sense of continuity within the regulatory framework, Article 94(2) GDPR provides that any reference

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

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

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

Chair represents the Board (Article 68(2) GDPR) and is responsible for directing the work of the secretariat (Article 75(2) GDPR). Other specific responsibilities

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

(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)

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

referred to in Article 64. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93(2). Recital 167:

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

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

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

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

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

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

definition for "processing" in Article 4(2) GDPR). If data is been made public, the applicable provision is Article 17(2) GDPR, provided that all requirements

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

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

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

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

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

with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93(2). You can help us fill this section! Article 43 GDPR explains the procedure involved in establishing

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

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

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, 2nd edition);

prepared differentiated notices, which the DPA found complied with Article 34(2) GDPR. In a defense brief, the controller argued that it took preventive

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

related decisions in Category:Article 16 GDPR Meents, Hinzpeter in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO – BDSG, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 2 (Deutscher Fachverlag, 4th

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 delegated

processing (Article 32(1) GDPR) and the general principles of processing set out in Article 5 GDPR. In confirming the above interpretation, Paragraph 2 sets out

a binding dispute resolution procedure in accordance with Article 65 GDPR. Article 64(2) GDPR allows any SA, the EDPB Chair or the Commission to request

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

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

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

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

to in Article 61(6) GDPR. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93(2) GDPR. → You

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

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

resolution mechanism under Article 65 GDPR in connection with Article 63 GDPR is triggered (Article 60 (4) GDPR). Article 60(2) GDPR clarifies that also in

consistency mechanism under Article 65(2)(1) GDPR and the adoption of the EDPS’s rules of procedure under Article 72(2) GDPR. Notably, each EDPB member

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

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

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

and jurisdiction provisions (Articles 47(1)(b), 47(2)(d), 47(2)(e), 47(2)(g), 47(2)(i), 47(2)(l) GDPR); a duty for the EU BCR member to accept responsibility

difference between Article 42(1) GDPR and Article 42(2) GDPR is that in the former, the applicant for certification is subject to the GDPR, while in latter

According to Article 80(2) GDPR, where legislated for by Member States, this right extends to Articles 77, 78 and 79 GDPR, but not Article 82 GDPR. This exclusion

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

from Articles 13(2)(b) and 14(2)(c) GDPR. However, Article 21(4) GDPR specifies that the right to object under Article 21(1) and 21(2) GDPR (i.e. the right

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

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

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

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

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)

occupation. For example, Article 52(2) GDPR requires SA members to remain free from external influence and Article 52(3) GDPR entails a prohibition of

reliance on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR or at least exercise the right to object under Article 21 GDPR. If the legal basis is Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (i.e. 'legitimate

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 49 GDPR, p. 846 (Oxford University Press 2020). EDPB, ‘Guidelines 2/2018 on derogations of Article 49 under Regulation

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

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

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

in principle (see hereunder Article 65(2) GDPR) to adopt a decision under Article 65 GDPR is reached, since Article 64 GDPR only requires a simple majority

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)’

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

laid down in Article 57 GDPR. The powers of SAs are both investigative and corrective, which are set out in Article 58 GDPR. Article 52(2) GDPR requires two

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

Spain the GDPR is developed by the Ley Orgánica 3/2018 de Protección de Datos Personales y garantía de los derechos digitales (LOPDGDD). Article 7.2 LOPDGDD

deals with processing within the scope of the GDPR. Part 2 deals with processing outside of the scope of the GDPR. Part 3 deals with processing by competent

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

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

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

processed on the basis of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR does not have the rights to erasure and objection contained in Article 17 and Article 21 GDPR respectively. This

conferred on it by the provisions of Article 58 of the GDPR and Article 15 of Law 4624/2019. 2. As Article 5 of the GDPR defines the processing principles

longer of importance to society. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(c) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to comply with the data subject's

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

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

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

under Article 34 GDPR. The Garante had to establish whether the INPS acted lawfully with regard to the communication obligation under Article 34 GDPR. In

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 not

Protection Regulation (Article 83 (2) (e) of the General Data Protection Regulation). circumstances within the meaning of Article 2 (2) (b), (f), (g), (h)

a data protection officer in violation of Article 37(1)(b) GDPR in conjunction with Articles 34(1)(ñ) and 34(3) LOPDGDD. Conseguridad SL (a private security

regulation [2]. Article 32, paragraph 1, and Article 33, para. 1. Below is a more detailed review of the case and a justification for the decision. 2. The competence

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

intention to infringe either article 5(1)( c) or article 34(1) of the GDPR. Legal framework 8.1. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR “Personal Data shall be:

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

the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued

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

Iltalehti's article (url search result link 2) is "", which in itself tells about the escape of the applicant who is the subject of the article. The writings

as indicated in article 25.2 of the RGPD. In this sense, it is meant that the indeterminacy referred to in the article 25.2 of the GDPR refers to the default

to the criteria laid down by Article 83 paragraph 2 of the GDPR. With regard to the breach of Article L. 34-5 of the GDPR, the restricted committee considers

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

57(1)(a), Article 83(1)-(2) and Article 83(6) in connection with Article 58(2)(e) and (i) of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

to the controller in accordance with Article 58 (2) (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation. The Article 34 notification by the controller did not

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

Articles 34(3), 38(1)(3), 40 and 57(1)(2) of UK GDPR. ICO also recommended that WMP should take certain steps to ensure its compliance with the UK GDPR. Share

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 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

DPO as per Article 37 GDPR and 34(1) LOPDGDD, as well as in relation to the need of registering such appointment at the AEPD website [Article 34(3) LOPDGDD]

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 sec. 1 Regulation

protection incident by the general under Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation. According to Article 34 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation

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

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

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

subject ,2 in order to decide whether notification is also required for this according to article 34 of the GDPR, while par. 5 of article 33 of the GDPR explicitly

individuals complies with Article 14 of the GDPR. 2 On breaches in connection with the exercise of rights 28. Under Article 12 of the GDPR: "1. The controller

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

contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD and the article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to the infraction committed by violating the established in article 5.1

constitute personal data under Article 4(1) GDPR? If so, do they qualify as special categories of personal data under Article 9 GDPR? Is the defendant obliged

(VWA ./05, see point II.2), the XXXX (VWA ./06, see point II.2) and a certificate of representation (VWA ./07, see point II.2). I.2. As a result, the BA continued

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)

obligation imposed on public authorities under Article 37(1) GDPR. This obligation is also within Article 34(1) and (3) of the Spanish data protection law

measures to security of processing, in accordance with Article 32 GDPR, in connection with Article 24 GDPR, as the controller did not take into account the risks

..................... .14 2.2.1 Applicable regulations, etc. ................................................... ...14 2.2.2 The Privacy Protection Authority's

ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376, paragraph 4.2.2, of 28 May 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:793, paragraph 2.4.5, and of 19 July 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, paragraph 2.13.2). 33. The Section

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

freedoms of other persons according to Art. 15 (4) GDPR (Gola GDPR/Franck, 2nd ed. 2018, GDPR Art. 15 Rn. 33, 34). It is argued that this restriction is not only

protection. /Article 6.1 c) Ju in combination with Article 6.3 of the GDPR. b) Violation of Articles 5.1.a}, 12.1, 13.lc}, 13.2.a}, 13.2.d}, and 13.2.e}, for

ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376, paragraph 4.2.2, of 28 May 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:793, paragraph 2.4.5, and of 19 July 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, paragraph 2.13.2). 40. The Section

processor, Vamavi Phone SL, had violated Article 48(1) LGT, Article 21 GDPR in link with Article 23 LOPDGDD and Article 28 GDPR by making a commercial call on behalf

information in accordance with Art. 15 (1) half-sentence 2 GDPR. According to Art. 4 No. 2 GDPR, processing also includes in particular the collection,

respecting the time limits as set out to in Article 12(5) of the GDPR and Article 35(2) of the Dutch GDPR Implementation Act? According to the court, the

for more than two years after the entry into force of the GDPR. This breached Article 37 GDPR. Ayuntamiento de Arroyomolinos was found lacking a Data Protection

Procedure (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 256) and Article 7(1) and (2), Article 60, Article 101, Article 103 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Data

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

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

manual and human processing errors. 5.6. Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 34 (1) of the Regulation 1, that when a breach

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

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

clauses n ° 1 and n ° 2 regarding - articles 6/2 ° and 32 / I / 2 ° & 5 ° of the Data Protection Act for all contracts, - Article L.111-2 of the Consumer Code

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

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

11, 148, 150, and Article 5, Chapter IV and Article 83. 4 2.8 Chapter IV, Section 2 addresses security of personal data. Article 32 GDPR provides: 1. Taking

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

mandatory by article 13.2.a) of the GDPR. 2.2 Regarding the exercise of their rights by the persons concerned 67 53. In the context of objective 2, the head

breach of Article 13 (2) of the GDPR. 43. Consequently, the restricted panel considers that the company has committed a breach of Article 13 of the GDPR. It

DPA (AEPD) imposed a €1000 fine on a beauty salon for breaching Article 17 GDPR and Article 21 LSSI. The salon sent a marketing SMS to a client months after

exercised by a complainant pursuant to Article 17 GDPR and analysed the exercise of the rights under Articles 15-22 GDPR. On 15 February 2019, Mrs A.A.A.  (hereinafter

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

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

unsolicited commercial emails without a legal basis, connected to Article 6 of the GDPR—, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

consent banner violated Article 22.2 of the Spanish Law on Services of the Information Society and Electronic Commerce (Ley 34/2002, de 11 de julio, de

pursuant to Article 17(2) DPA Act. 9. Moreover, as regards the one-stop-shop mechanism, Article 56 GDPR states: "Without prejudice to Article 55, the supervisory

data is a fundamental right. Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and Article 16(1) of the Treaty on the

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

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

Protection Act) § 22. The provisions of Articles 13(1) to (3), Article 14(1), Article 15 and Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation shall not apply if the

having appointed a data protection officer, thus breaching Article 37 GDPR. After the GDPR came into force, the Burgos city Council did not appoint a DPO

under this Article. Article 11 (2) In the cases referred to in paragraphs 15 to 22, the controller shall exercise their rights under Article may not refuse

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

infringement of Article 5.1 c) AVG has been proven. f)Transparent information (Article 5.1(a); Article 12.1. and Article 13.1. and 13.2. AVG) 43.The complainant

a breach of Article L. 34-5 of the French Post and Electronic Communications Code. The CNIL recalls the provisions of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, according to

pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, because controller violated Article 32(1) GDPR. The Court upheld the appeal and ordered the controller to pay € 2,500, - as

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.

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

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

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) —this is the Spanish law regulating cookies, connected to Article 13 of the

the lack of a privacy and cookie policy on a website infringe Article 13 GDPR and Article 22(2) LSSI? The AEPD decided to impose a fine to the clinic: € 2000

AEPD considers that this could lead to a sanction, in accordance with article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The

AEPD pursuant to Article 72(1)(m). The AEPD does not specify the provision of Article 21 on which it bases its decision. Article 21 GDPR states that the

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

competent to decide, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(2) in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

imposition of measures, according to article 58.2 d) of the GDPR. Along with it and In accordance with article 58.2 of the GDPR, it was also indicated that the

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

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

there is no explicit consent by the customers as requested under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and an implied consent cannot fulfill the provision’s requirement

and Article 57(1)(a), Article 58(2)(d) and (i) in connection with Article 5(1)(a), (e) and (f) and (2), Article 24(1) and (2), Article 28, Article 30(1)(d)

paragraph second, of Law 34/2002, of July 11, on Services of the Society of the Information and Electronic Commerce (LSSI). II Article 22.2 of the aforementioned

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

of the Spanish Agency of Data Protection, as laid down in Article 56(2) in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

has been received. Does the GDPR allow the data controller to ignore a request for erasure? The AEPD found that Article 12 GDPR does not allow the data controller

decide on this matter, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(2) in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

to take a decision in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(2) in conjunction with Article 57(1)(f) both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

the Spanish Agency of Data Protection, as laid down in Article 56(2) in in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of European Parliament

considered a violation pursuant to Article 72(1)(m) of the LOPDGDD, which would be sanctioned according to Article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share

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 bodies (the

Protection, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to Article 57 (1) f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

the requirements established in article 21 and do not constitute Serious offense". Pursuant to the provisions of article 39.1.c) of the LSSI, minor offenses

Protection Regulation (2016/679) Article 12 (4), Article 17 (3), Article 21 (2) and (3), Article 25 (2), Article 58 (2) (b) Section 2 of the Health Care Professional

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

Human Rights. According to settled case-law, it follows from Article 1.2 and Article 59.2 of the Basic Law that there is an obligation to use the Human

requirements of the GDPR; Because from Recital 171 Sentence 2 GDPR, from Art. 4 No. 2 GDPR and Art. 24 Para. 1, in particular Sentence 2 GDPR, the obligation

established in article 43.1 of Law 34/2002, of July 11,Information Society Services and Electronic Commerce (LSSI), for infractionstion of article 22.2. of the

violates Article 32 GDPR. Retaining personal data of an applicant for a lease after another applicant has been selected also violates Article 5(1)(e) GDPR

reply. The AKI reminded the defendant of its obligation under Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR to inform the data subject in a concise, clear, comprehensible

recording is "processing" of "personal data" within the meaning of Article 4(1) and 4(2) GDPR. Therefore, the data subject has the right to request access to

reprimand to the company for not complying with Article 13 GDPR, since it failed to even mention the GDPR in its Privacy Policy. Share your comments here

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

2019, BVwerG 6 C 2.18 "It follows that the opening clauses of Article 6.2 and 6.3 GDPR for processing operations under Article 6.1(1)(e) GDPR do not cover

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

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

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

in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

under Article 15 GDPR to the defendant and requested i.a. information on concrete recipients of their personal data under Article 15(1)(c) GDPR. The defendant

the Spanish Agency of Data Protection, as laid down in Article 56(2) in in relation to Article 57(1)(f), both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of European Parliament

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

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

specified period - article 58. 2 d) -. According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the measure provided for in article 58.2 d) of the aforementioned

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

ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the requirements of awarding damages for GDPR violations and the assessment of such damage under Article 82 GDPR. For the

in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

section 6 (2) of the Data Protection Act.n as a safeguard in accordance with subsection 2.n as a safeguard in accordance with subsection 2. 15. According

in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

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

change its practices to guarantee the right to object in accordance with the GDPR. The DPA received 40 complaints against the cinema company Finnkino regarding

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 the

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

under this Article. Article 11 (2) In the cases referred to in paragraphs 15 to 22, the controller shall exercise their rights under Article may not refuse

elements provided for in Article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As to the nature and seriousness of the violation (Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), it is that with respect

specific enough and did not comply with Article 13 GDPR. Does the lack of precision enough to infrige Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD found that the information

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.

contrary to the legal provisions established in article 22.2 LSSI. This Infraction is classified as "minor" in Article 38.4 g) of the aforementioned Law, and may

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)

data within the meaning of Article 4(2) in the course of proceedings under both Articles 77 and 78 of the GDPR. Article 4(2) refers to disclosure as a

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

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

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

dossier werden toegevoegd. 2. Motivering 2.1. De bevoegdheid van de Inspectiedienst en de Geschillenkamer en de omvang van het dossier 2.1.1. Het verzoek van

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 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

explanatory statement of the law, Article 10 defines the Authority’s competence in compliance with Article 55 GDPR.Article 55 GDPR provides for a restriction

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

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

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

has engaged another real estate agent for the sale. 2 Process flow First instance 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 PME summoned [plaintiff] on May 9, 2018 (see also

compliant with Articles 5 and 6 GDPR. According to Article 6 GDPR, when a controller did not rely on consent (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR), its processing should be

been deleted by the employer upon request pursuant to Article 16, Article 17 and Article 5(1)(d) GDPR (inaccuracy of personal data). Therefore, the employer

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

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

registers removed is rejected. 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, [applicant] can rely on Article 21 of the GDPR. Article 21 GDPR gives a data subject the right to object

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 of

contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD and the article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to the infraction committed by violating the established in article 5.1

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

specified in article 32 GDPR (security of processing). In determining the amount of the fine, certain aggravating factors of article 83 GDPR were considered

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) — amongst others, the Spanish law regulating cookies — and Article 13 of

before May 25, 2018. 2.2. Consent and the lawfulness of the processing (Article 4, point 11, Article 6 (1) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR) 121. With regard

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

held that the controller violated Article 12(1) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR, Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 15(3) GDPR. The controller had deleted the data

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

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

DI-2020-11373 2(23) Date: 2023-06-30 2.2.1 Applicable regulations, etc. ................................................... .....9 2.2.2 The Privacy Protection

After considering the objections in light of Article 4(24) GDPR and the factors outlined in Article 83(2) GDPR the EDPB instructed the DPC to impose an administrative

by the EDPB pursuant to Article 66(2) GDPR. Temporary ban on processing (order) Pursuant to Article 66(1) GDPR and 58(2)(f) GDPR the Norwegian DPA consequently

they filed a complaint, however the accused company acted according to Article 28 GDPR and the Spanish DPA ended the proceedings. A.A.A. (data subject) received

the GDPR does not apply established by the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 para. 1, 2 para. 1 and 3 para. 2 GDPR

No. 1, No. 2, Art. 6 para. 1 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)

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

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) —this is the Spanish law regulating cookies, connected to Article 13 of the

the commission of the infraction of article 22.2 of the LSSI. This offense is classified as "slight" in article 38.4 g), of the aforementioned Law, which

L119 and Article 34 of the Law on the Implementation of the General Regulation on data protection ("Official Gazette", number 42/18) and Article 41 paragraph

The Spanish DPA (AEPD) fined Borjamotor, S.A. for infringing Article 7 GDPR and Article Article 21(1) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI)

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

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

alleged infringement of Article 48.1.b) of the Law LGT, classified as "minor" in Article 78.11) of the aforementioned Law LGT.2, NAME B.B.B. as instructor

§ 8 clause 2 of the GTC agreed between the parties (according to § 8 b paragraph 2 MB/KK). 52 § 8 b para. 2 MB/KK violates §203 sentence 2 VVG and is therefore

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)

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

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

as per Article 22(2) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI) —this is the Spanish law regulating cookies, connected to Article 13 of the

complainant, Article 83(2)(h) GDPR - The existence of a prior complaint. Aggravating factors in accordance with Article 72(2)(a) & (b) LOPDGDD and Article 83(2)(k)

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

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

this regard [GDPR Article 14 (2) b) ]. (iv) The prospectus did not provide any information regarding data subject rights [GDPR Article 14 (2) c)]. In the

Croatian DPA did not explain which specific corrective powers under Article 58(2) GDPR it used. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

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

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

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

by Article 83.2 of the RGPD, and with the provisions of Article 76 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to paragraph k) of the aforementioned Article 83.2 RGPD

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. a)

according to ***URL.2 - gads, expiring on November 2, 2021 and for advertising purposes according to ***URL.2 - _ga, expiring on 2 November 2021 and for

offence against privacy included in Article 197(1) of the Spanish Criminal Code, with the aggravating circumstance from Article 197(5) of being data related to

complied with the principle of data minimization as per Article 5 (1) (c) and Article 25 (2) GDPR? The Finnish DPA held that the controller has not complied

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

Policy on their website (Article 13 GDPR) and for the absence of a reject button on the second layer of their Cookie Policy (Article 22(2) LSSI). The claimant

it in contrast with Article 88(2) GDPR. In order to better clarify the relationship between paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 88 GDPR, the German court issued

A.A.A., herein the data controller, violated Article 6 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR, as well as Article 22.2 LSSI (Spanish national law). The data subject

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

portability; (d) where processing is based on point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2), the existence of the right to withdraw consent at any

organisation contravene Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? The AEPD found that the disclosure of her personal data to the 400 members violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD stressed

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

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

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

down in the GDPR were not fulfilled. In conclusion, the controller was found to have infringed Article 15 GDPR in conjunction with Article 12 GDPR at the time

a bank was subject to the GDPR in its capacity as a controller and should have answered access requests under Article 15 GDPR.   The complainants are clients

***DOMAIN.2 C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/20 cookies Domain Description dmvk ***DOMAIN.2 usprivacy ***DOMAIN.2 2.- About

h), art. 58 sec. 2 it. e) i i), Art. 83 sec. 1-3 and art. 83 sec. 4 it. a) in connection with Art. 33 paragraph 1 and art. 34 sec. 1, 2 and 4 of Regulation

pursuant to Article 12(3) of the AVG. If, as in this case, such a decision is taken by an administrative body, then, pursuant to Article 34 of the GDPR Implementing

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

UC (the controller); an access request under Article 15 GDPR and an erasure request under Article 17 GDPR. Regarding the erasure request specifically,

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

25(1) and 25(2). The complaints in Belgium were related to a possible violation of Articles 32 to 34 GDPR and the DPC decision focused on Article 25. The key

violation of Article 13 GDPR and issued a warning to the controller. The AEPD took into account the following aggravating factors (Article 83 (2) GDPR) to determine

Data Protection Agency's decision 3.1. Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 34 (1) of the Regulation 1, that when a breach

establishes article 83.2 of the RGPD, and with the provisions of article 76 of the LOPDGDD, regarding section k) of the aforementioned article 83.2 RGPD. In

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

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)

constitute a breach of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR? The AEPD held, that the actions of the defendant constitute an infringement of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR " Data Minimisation

in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 inin relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of theEuropean

injunctive relief under § 1004.1 sentence 2 of the German Civil Code in conjunction with § 1004.1 sentence 2 of the German Civil Code due to the unlawful

the infringement of the data minimisation principle specified at Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

new page gina *** URL.2, in which information is provided in accordance with those stipulated in the article Article 13 of the GDPR. Regarding the complaint

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

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

installing a video surveillance camera system violating Article 22 LOPDGDD and Article 12 GDPR? The Spanish DPA found that the defendant could install

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

Articles 34 of the Act on the Implementation of the General Regulation on Protection data ("Official Gazette", number: 42/2018), Article 41 and Article 96 of

violation of Article 5(1)(d) of the GPRS, in relation to Article 4(1) of the LOPDGDD, which governs the principle of accuracy of personal data. IV Article 72.1

accordance with the law (Article 2 of the Act on land and mortgage registers and mortgage and Article 20 (1) point 1 and Article 24 section 2 of the Geodetic and

subject's rights, such as the right to object according to Article 21 GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to ensure that data

with Article 5 (1) (f) and Article 32.1 and 32.2 of the Data Protection Ordinance, Chapter 4 § 2 and ch. 6 § 7 the Patient Data Act and Chapter 4 2 § HSLF-FS

Issue 2 concerned whether the controller had infringed Article 34 GDPR and Issue 3 considered whether the controller had infringed Article 32 GDPR. The

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

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

this the AZOP held that the controller acted contrary to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR. Moreover, the AZOP reiterated the fact that the pictures

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

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

negligent action (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) and that basic identifiers such as name, surname, and address are affected (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR), including also

for the infringement of the confidentiality principle specified at Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

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

company, Iberdrola Clientes, S.A.U for infringing Article 21 GDPR, Article 48(1)(b) LGT, and Article 23(4) LOPDGDD. The initial proposed fine was €10000

[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

of a link to this information. This was a violation of Article 12. Based on Article 13(2)(a) GDPR and WP29 guidelines on transparency, the CNIL noted that

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

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

processing involved special categories of data under Article 9 GDPR and whether an exception under Article 9(2) applied; • targeted advertising by the controller

of personal data mentioned in Article 2 (2) GDPR are not relevant. Contrary to the plaintiff's view, Article 2(2)(d) GDPR does not apply in the present

legal requirements of Article 15 GDPR. In particular, the DPA stressed the importance of the right of access under Article 15 GDPR, since this right allowed

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

complainant as per Article 17 GDPR, as well as his/her right as a consumer to refuse unsolicited commercial phone calls, as per Article 21 GDPR in connection

Communications Act § 2-7 b, which implement Article 5 (3) of the Communication Protection Directive, are lex specialis for the Privacy Regulation. Article 95 of the

complaint; b. give notice to the second defendant, pursuant to Article 58(2)(a) AVG and Article 100(1)(5) WOG, that it will not take part in the proceedings

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR? AEPD considered that the documentation provided offers evidence that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) of the GDPR, by processing

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

32(2) GDPR. Finally, the Finnish DPA considered that the firm had failed to respect the principle of accountability enshrined in Article 5(2) GDPR, as

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

necessary. Thus, the controller acted in accordance with Article 33 GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. In addition, considering that the controller did not present

with the information on Article 15 to 22 requests without delay and in any case within one month of receipt. Article 34 of the GDPR Implementation Act states

right of opposition of persons pursuant to Article 21 of the GDPR 60. According to Article 21.2 of the GDPR: “when the personal data are processed for

"accept all" button be considered a breach of GDPR Article 4(11) and Article 7, read in conjunction with GDPR Article 5(3) -Privacy while the data controller

in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in in relation to paragraph 1 f) of article 57, both of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

regarded as a request under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Article 34 of the Gdpr Implementation Act states that a decision on such a request by

personal data under Article 15 GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the airline company had not complied with the right to access in Article 15 GDPR when it refused

the GDPR, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(b) and (d) respectively. For the violation of Article 5(1)(f), it issued a fine of €10000, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i)

4 and article 15 of the GDPR (right of access), for reasons set out below. Furthermore, in accordance with article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and article 95, §

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

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

"Regarding section k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76," Sanctions and corrective measures", provides:"2. In accordance with the provisions

Regulation), Article 34 of the Law on the Implementation of the General Regulation on Data Protection ("Official Gazette", No. 42/18) and Article 96, Paragraph

statement of the Debtor [Article 83 (2) (k) GDPR]; - the processing did not affect specific categories of personal data [Article 83 (2) GDPR paragraph (g)]; -

(cf. Article 36 (2) no. 7 lit. a DPA) for the purposes of military self-protection (cf. Article 36 (1) DPA in conjunction with Article 2 (1) no. 2 MBG)

significant negligent action identified (Art. 83 (2) (b) GDPR). -basic personal affected (Art. 83 (2) (g) GDPR). -Actions previously committed, as this is not

this passage refers to Article 5(2)). The Spanish DPA therefore proposed a fine of €60000 on Vodafone for infringing Article 6(1) GDPR. This was then reduced

hacker attack, hence there had been no violation of Article 12 GDPR, Article 5 GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. The BVwG instead determined that the blocking of

Failure to ensure data protection by default (Article 25(2) GDPR) The DPA also found a violation of Article 25(2) GDPR regarding the controllers “X” icon at the

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

significant (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR). - basic personal identifiers were affected (name, identification number, the line identifier) (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The

of a person (article 83.2 b).-Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, a number ofidentification, the line identifier) ​​(article 83.2 g).- Section

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

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

regard to Article 83.2(k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, "Sanctions and remedial measures", provides that "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

processing of personal data of clients or third parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD) It is appropriate to graduate

District Court in W. 1.2 The information of the Chief Inspector of Road Transport constitutes information referred to in Article 7(1)(2) of the Act of 20 March

registered on the Robinson List in breach of Article 48(1)(b) LGT and Article 21 GDPR in conjunction with Article 23(4) LOPDGDD. Avilon Center SL made an voluntary

protection of personal data (Article 34 of the Act) and the supervisory authority within the meaning of Regulation 2016/679 (Article 34 (2) of the Act). I. Referring

under article 6 GDPR. However, the Court concluded that an immediate notification sent to the data subject was not necessary under article 34 GDPR. In particular

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,

of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, and to bring its processing into compliance with Article 6(1) GDPR. Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR, and

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

reasoned in accordance with Article 4(24) GDPR and, after conducting its own assessment of the factors under Article 83(2) GDPR, found that the proposed fine

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:

claims journalistic exception according to Article 43 of the GDPR Implementation Act and Article 85 of the GDPR, which means that information obligations

No. 9/1992 as amended: Article 5, Article 6, Article 51, paragraph one, Article 57, paragraph one , Litera f, as well as Article 77, paragraph one, of Regulation

...................... .11 2.2.1 Applicable regulations, etc. ................................................ ...11 2.2.2 The Privacy Protection Authority's

because, under the GDPR, Facebook Norway could not be considered a data controller under Article 4(7) GDPR and Articles 66(1) and 61(8) GDPR were used incorrectly

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

out 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)

ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376, paragraph 4.2.2, of 28 May 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:793, paragraph 2.4.5, and of 19 July 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, paragraph 2.13.2). 40. The Section

a) of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the GDPR. It is based on the same arguments as those developed concerning the breach of article L.34-5 of the GDPR, with

are established in Article 58.2 of the RGPD.2(b), the power to impose an administrative fine under Article 83 of the GDPR - Article 58(2)(i), or the power

with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD SECOND:

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

directly from Article 77 GDPR. However, the GDPR does not contain any specifications regarding the deadlines for asserting a claim under Article 77 GDPR. The exercise

certain data to be delete. It brought a legal action based on Article 17 GDPR and Article 21 GDPR, read in conjunction with the Dutch Data Protection Act (Wet

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

the number of data subjects (Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the As for the number of data subjects (Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Panel notes that these

serious negligent action (article 83.2 b). Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, surname, mobile phone number) (article 83.2 g). The evident link between

have entered into a breacha / 'article 14.1-2 combined' article 12.3, article 6, article 5.1, c) and articles 5.2 and 24.1-2 of the RGPO. It is therefore

accordance with Article 72(1)(a) LOPDGDD and falls under the criteria defined in article 83(5)(a) GDPR where a company can be fined up to €2 million, or in

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

principle to which Article 6(1) GDPR is linked, and imposed a fine of €2000 relying on Article 58(2) GDPR. The defendant ultimately paid €1200 for the breach

sedeagpd.gob.es 10/14 claimed (article 83.2. a) of the RGPD). - The intentionality or negligence of the infringement (article 83.2. B) of the RGPD). - Basic

or negligence in the infringement (article 83.2 b).Basic personal identifiers (name, surname,address) (article 83.2 g).C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001

messages. Is this a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR? The AEPD held that this behaviour was a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and fined Vodafone €100,000

control authority, are established in article 58.2 of the RGPD. Between they have the power to direct a warning -article 58.2 b) -, the Power to impose an administrative

" Regarding section k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with the provisions

violation of the article6.1. of the RGPD, in relation to article 20 e) of the LOPDGDD, typifiedin article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned GDPR.2. TO appoint D

Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 2 2/10infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in accordance with the provisions of article83.5.b) of the RGPD and b)

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

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

negligence of the offense (article 83.2 b). - Basic personal identifiers (name, data) are affected banks, the line identifier) ​​(article 83.2 g). That is why it

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. Taking

to Article 83(2)(k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, "Penalties and corrective measures", states that: "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

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

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

accordance with Article 58, paragraph 2, subparagraph b of the General Data Protection Regulation, and an order pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, subparagraph

obligations under Article 21 of the GDPR. Fourthly, EDF breached its obligation to guarantee data security as prescribed in Article 32 of the GDPR. In particular

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

1.: Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter c, Article 6, Article 12 Paragraph 3, Article 51 Paragraph 1, Article 57 Paragraph 1 Letter f, Article 58 Paragraph

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

the type of data) are: Article 9(2)(h) GDPR (necessary for the purposes of preventive or occupational medicine); Article 9(2)(i) GDPR (for reasons of public

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

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

violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR, Article 12(6) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. In accordance with Article 58(2)(c) GDPR

protected by article 5 par. 1 item a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR and b) directs a reprimand, according to article 58 par. 2 b) GDPR, to the complained

meaning of Article 22 (1) of the GDPR with regard to [Applicants]. Since Article 13, paragraph 2, heading and under f, Article 14, paragraph 2, heading and

negligent action (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR), and for being data known as basic personal identifiers such as name and address (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The AEPD set

Thus, it violated Article 15 GDPR. The Datatilsynet issued an injunction and ordered the company, as foreseen under 58(2)(c) GDPR, to carry out a concrete

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

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

regulation as established in thearticle 2.2 of the RGPD and article 2.2.a) of the LOPDGDD. It says to article 2.2 of the RGPD:"2. This Regulation does not apply

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

woman Previous address: S***strasse 2-4/35 2***L*** The leave compartment is to be set up at: N***stelle 2*** F***gasse 7 2***L*** The incoming shipments are

principles are found under Article 5(1)(a) and Article 5(2) GDPR respectively]. The Spanish DPA even made reference to Recital 40 GDPR on the legality of processing

his/her consent. The DPA first outlined Article 6(1)(a) and (b) GDPR, Articles 4(11) GDPR on consent, as well as Article 6 of the Spanish Data Protection Law

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

which Articles 2 (f) and 5 (3) of Directive 2002/58, read in conjunction with Article 2 (h) of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679 4 Article 6 (11) and

58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32 sec. 1 and 2, as well

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

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

erasure under Article 17 GDPR. Moreover, the Court found that the plaintiff did not justify his reliance on Article 18 GDPR. As for Article 21 GDPR, the Court

supervisory authorities (Article 58(2) DSGVO), in particular the fines to be imposed (Article 58(2)(i) DSGVO), for which Article 83 DSGVO contains a detailed

accordance with Article 31 of the GDPR, Article 31, due to the security breach , GDPR. According to Article 83 Paragraph 4 Letter a of the GDPR, these two provisions

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

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

2022, Article 82 GDPR, paragraph 20; Nemitz, in: Ehmann/Selmayr, GDPR, 2nd edition 2018, Article 82, paragraph 20; Gola/Piltz, in: Gola/Heckmann, GDPR/ BDSG

paragraph of Article 2, ZKme-1 (point a) of the third paragraph of Article 5, the first paragraph of Article 139, the second paragraph of Article 143 of the

accuracy set out in Article 5, paragraph one, letter d of the GDPR? 2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Should Article 16 GDPR be interpreted as

legal basis under Article 9(2) GDPR for sending the medical assessment, which contained health data under Article 14 GDPR#15Article 4(15) GDPR, to the municipality

(hereinafter: the GDPR) applies on 25 May 2018 become. The GDPR imposes the same obligation in Article 32, paragraph 1, as it applied under Article 13 6. The UWV

and Article 5, Chapter IV and Article 83. The relevant obligations 2.5. Chapter 1 GDPR sets out the general provisions. Article 5 of Chapter I GDPR sets

specified period - article 58. 2 d) -. According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the measure provided for in article 58.2 d) of the aforementioned

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

August 2, 2017 is attached (THE CLIENT) and JOKER PREMIUM INVEX, S.L. (THE SUPPLIER). Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the first stipulation and section 2.2 of the

art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1 and 2 and article. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) in connection with art. 33 paragraph 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 and 2 of the Regulation

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

understood as references to the GDPR, in accordance with Article 94 of the latter. 34. Similarly, it follows from recital 173 of the GDPR that this text explicitly

tickets, can be based on the authorization in point 5. Article 9 Act no. 90/2018 and Article 6 of the GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

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

document. Concerning the first question, the DPA held that under Article 2(2)(d) GDPR, the Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data

violated the GDPR and the consent given through such a banner cannot be considered a valid consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 4(11) GDPR. Further

processing of personal data relating to him/her on the basis of Article 6(1)(e) or (f) of Article 6(1), including profiling on the basis of those provisions