Search results

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

breach to affected data subjects as required under Article 34(1) GDPR. Accordingly, Article 34(4) GDPR suggests that the SA can play a determinative role

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)

the under General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679. According to Article 33 of GDPR, in the case of a personal data breach, the Data Controller shall

(2), Article 60, Article 101, Article 101a and Article 103 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on personal data protection (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1781) and

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

evaluating the effectiveness of security measures (Article 32(1)(d) GDPR). According to Article 4(5) GDPR, "pseudonymisation" means the processing of personal

such as profiling (see also Article 4(4) GDPR); Restriction (marking for limited further processing, see also Article 4(3) GDPR), such as deactivation of

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

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

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

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

performance. Article 7 GDPR regulates the "conditions for consent". It specifies the definition of consent set out in Article 4(11) GDPR and, by integrating

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

burdens. This reading of Article 31 GDPR is supported by the language of Article 83(4)(a) GDPR which categorises Article 31 GDPR as an 'obligation' 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)

a "filing system" within the meaning of Article 4(6) GDPR. See also Article 2(1) GDPR on the scope of the GDPR when it comes to non-automated filing systems

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

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)

further discussed, in Article 4(1) GDPR. Any information that relates to an identified or identifiable natural person falls under the GDPR, this also includes

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

can carry out a notification in phases under Article 33(4) GDPR (see below). Under Article 33(3)(b) GDPR, the supervisory authority must be given the contact

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

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

which would be competent under Article 55(1) GDPR, as provided in Article 56 GDPR in connection with Article 60 GDPR. For more information see commentary

categories of data under Article 9 GDPR or data relating to criminal convictions and offences under Article 10 GDPR. Article 37(2) GDPR allows for the designation

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

about the scope of the term 'personal data' under Article 4(1) GDPR. Non-EU citizens can rely on the GDPR as its application is generally independent of nationality

provisions such as Article 30(4) for the record of processing or Article 40(11) for the register of approved codes of conduct, Article 26 does not explicitly

GDPR are Article 4(7) GDPR (definition of controller), Article 4(8) GDPR (definition of processor), Article 4(16) GDPR (definition of main establishment)

relevance of Article 29 GDPR were rooted in the fact that Article 28(3)(b) GDPR already seems to cover much of the scope of Article 29 GDPR. More specifically

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

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

(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)

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

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

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

Category:Article 67 GDPR See EDPB, State of Play - IMI for GDPR purposes, 27 June 2018 (available here). See EDPB, 2019 Annual Report, Section 4.3.1 (available

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.

Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 25 GDPR, p. 577 (Oxford University Press 2020). EDPB, 'Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection

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

decisions in Category:Article 74 GDPR For more on this point, see Article 72 GDPR. Dix in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 74 GDPR, margin number 7 (C

disclosed to per Article 4(9) GDPR. Article 19 does not establish any specific time requirement for notification. However, since the purpose of Article 19 is to

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

62(7) GDPR, the reference to the EDPB is mandatory. The authority addressed under Article 66(1)-(2) GDPR is the CSA within the meaning of Article 4(22) GDPR

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

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

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

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

Recital 167 GDPR and Article 291 TFEU, the aim of implementing acts is to “ensure uniform conditions for implementing” the GDPR. In its GDPR Certification

meaning of Article 4(7) and (8) GDPR can be liable for compensation. A claim for damages first requires an infringement of the GDPR. Article 82 GDPR does not

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

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

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

please refer to Article 19 GDPR. If the controller declines to rectify the data, they must provide reasons for their decision (Article 12(4) GDPR). The data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Member State in relation to damage referred to in Article 62(4) GDPR. According to Article 62(7) GDPR, if the lead SA does not invite the SA to take part

right to data protection. Article 51 GDPR is closely connected to Article 4(21) (definition of SA), Article 52 (independence), Article 53 (General conditions

listed in Article 83(4), (5) and (6) GDPR. This specifically refers to violations of Articles 8, 11, 25 to 39, 41(4), 42, 43 of the GDPR (paragraph 4), Articles

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

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

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)

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

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

dispute resolution under Article 65(3)(1) GDPR and for consistency decisions in the urgency procedure under Article 66(4) GDPR is necessary, as these are

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

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

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

on Article 36(4), it is still disputed whether the outcome of the procedure rather resembles that of Article 58(3)(a) GDPR or Article 58(3)(b) GDPR. See

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

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

other DPAs concerned. The BCR Lead the submits, following Article 64(1) GDPR and Article 64(4) GDPR, a draft decision to the EDPB. The EDPB, in turn, issues

complaint under Article 77(1) GDPR on behalf of the data subject and to represent the them before all supervisory authorities (“SA”) (Article 4(21) GDPR). Secondly

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, p. 888 (Oxford University Press 2020). Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 54 GDPR, margin numbers

controller (as defined under Article 4(7) GDPR) and a processor (as defined under Article 4(8) GDPR). As noted above, Article 79 GDPR imposes a two-stage cumulative

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

that purpose. Article 89(4) GDPR makes it clear that the derogations to the GDPR are only available for processing specified in Article 89 GDPR, and not for

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

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

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

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

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

freedoms of individuals", as stated in Article 35(1) and further elucidated in Article 35(3) and Article 35(4) GDPR. The WP29 developed a list of criteria

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

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)

in Category:Article 3 GDPR EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 4 (available here)

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

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

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

incompatible with the office. Article 52(4) GDPR and Article 52(6) GDPR establish the framework for SAs financial governance. Article 52(4) GDPR stipulates that SAs

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

of a copy, that "Article 15(1) of the GDPR restricts the right of access to personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the GDPR and additional information

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

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

officers conforms to the exception contained in the second part of n. 4 of article 34 of the CRP, which allows access to data of this nature in the cases

assessed whether the processing could be based on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, because Articles 4:32 and 4:34 Wft oblige credit providers to participate in, and

compliance with the principles of Article 5 (1) GDPR. 4. As, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 (c) (d).1 GDPR is personal data “any information

access, according to Article 15(1)g GDPR. Thus, the HDPA held that the College as a data controller, according to Article 4(7) GDPR, fulfilled the right

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

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

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

assessment against the GDPR A. Identification of the controllers involved (Article 4.7 GDPR) 24. In accordance with Article 4.7 GDPR, it must be the controller

security are reported in a timely manner in future. 4.3. Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation Article 34 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1, it appears

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

alleged infringement of Article 37.1 b) of the RGPD, in relation to Article 34.1 ñ) of the LOPDGDD, typified in accordance with article 83.4 of the RGPD. FIFTH:

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

relation to the article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the RGPD with sanction of awareness. 3. Violation of article 34 of the RGPD in

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

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:

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)

can find Yle's news article with the title . Behind the URL search result link 4, on the other hand, you can find Alibi's news article with the title . Such

submitted its 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

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]

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

right of access under Article 15 GDPR? By denying the complainant access, did the respondent infringe Articles 12(1) or 12(2) GDPR? The NAIH that the complainant's

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

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

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

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

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

postponement did not comply with Article 34 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, therefore a With regard to Article 34 (4), Client 1 called on the parties

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

according to Article 34 of the GDPR, given that he had informed the Bank about the incident, nor to the Authority, according to Article 33 of the GDPR, because

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

thus failed to comply with Article 33 (3) of the GDPR. The DPA assessed that the Zoo did not comply with Article 34(1) of the GDPR by failing to carry out

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

ends and means of such activity, by virtue of article 4.7 of the GDPR. Article 4 section 12 of the GDPR broadly defines “violations of security of personal

32(1) and (2), Article 34(1), Article 35(1) and Article 35(3). or Art. 37 Para. 1 lit. b and lit. c GDPR), however, this circumstance does not mean that

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

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 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

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

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)

the meaning of Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR has a right to information from the person responsible within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR with regard to the processed

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

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

paragraph 3.3. Legal Protection' of the AVG Implementation Act, Article 34 reads as follows: Article 34. Applicability of the General Administrative Law Act by

increase or decrease. 4.4 Conclusion The AP sets the total fine at €400,000. 8For the justification, see paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. 24/25Date Unidentified

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

the same search results on the basis of Article 12 (4) GDPR has been rejected by Google . Article 21 (1) of the GDPR provides that a data subject has the

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

paragraph 3.3. Legal Protection' of the AVG Implementation Act, Article 34 reads as follows: Article 34. Applicability of the General Administrative Law Act by

provisions of the GDPR relating to the principles of data protection (article 5 of the GDPR) and the lawfulness of processing (article 6 of the GDPR). An infringement

compatible by virtue of a legal provision (see Article 6.4. of the RGPD). Based on the criteria in section 6.4 of the EDR: there is no link between the two

handed down under this article." III Article 73 of the LOPDDG states Infringements considered serious: "In accordance with Article 83(4) of Regulation (EU)

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

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 in

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

* clause n ° 12 regarding - of article 6 and article 32 / II of the Data Protection Act for all contracts, - of article L.132-1 of the Consumer Code in

power conferred by Article 58(2)(d) and (f) and Article 83(3) and (5) GDPR, imposed to Fastweb multiple corrective measures and a fine of € 4.501.868. Share

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

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

page 34 et seq. 23Investigation report, page 34, point 4.4.8.1. 24Investigation report, page 34, point 4.4.8.2.1.1 25Investigation report, page 34, point

requests for information according to Article 15(1) GDPR. The ‘Business secrecy’ exception only applied to Article 15(4) GDPR, where a data subject would request

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

default (Art. 25 GDPR), integrity and confidentiality (Art. 5.1.f GDPR), as well as security ofprocessing(Art. 32GDPR)......101 B.4.4. - Additional alleged

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.

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

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

permissible in accordance with Article 133, Paragraph 4, B-VG.The revision is permitted in accordance with Article 133, Paragraph 4, B-VG. text Reasons for the

monitor the functioning of decisions adopted on the basis of Article 25(6) or Article 26(4) of Directive 95/46/EC. In its adequacy decisions, the Commission

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

assessment framework 4.4. The right of access previously laid down in Article 12 of the Privacy Directive 95/46 has now been included in Article 15 of the AVG

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

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

the right of access under Article 15(4) of the GDPR or section 22 of the DDPA can be invoked. It follows from Article 15 (4), that the right to obtain

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

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

issued under this article. " III Article 73 of the LOPDDG indicates: Violations considered serious "Based on what is established in article 83.4 of Regulation

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

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

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

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

proceedings Article 77 (1) and Article 22 (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation. may be submitted in the case provided for in Under Article 77 (1) of

the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in sections 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law. " FIFTH: Article 17 of the RGPD provides that: "one. The interested

lit. a GDPR and Article 62.1 no. 4 DPA and Article 52.2 nos. 4 and 7 DPA 2000. The defendant's general assertions, in particular regarding the coverage

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

infringement of article 32.1 of the GDPR (LCEur 2016, 605), typified in the Article 83.4.a) of the GDPR, a warning sanction, in accordance with article 77 of 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

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)

Page 4 4/14Taking into account the above, ESLORA PROYECTOS is not subsumed innone of the cases of compulsory designation included (i) in article 37.1RGPD

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

right to access under Article 15 GDPR because the controller was entitled to reject the request pursuant to Article 12(5)(b) GDPR. The court reasoned that

the 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: €

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 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

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

Data 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

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

Spanish City Council with a warning of an infringement of Article 5(1)(c) pursuant to Article 83(5) over installed surveillance cameras in the City Hall

Regulation (EU)2016/679 and in the paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law " FIFTH: Article 17 of the RGPD states that: "1. The data subject

access and provide information when a citizen demands it in line with Article 15 GDPR. The complainant asked a company to exercise his/her right to obtain

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

the controller must comply with the request of access, as required by Article 15 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The decision

and 15(3) of the EU Regulation 2016/679 and in Article 13(3) and (4) of this Organic Law". FIFTH: Article 15 of the RGPD provides that "1. The data subject

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

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

copy of 4 commercial SMS received on 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021 and 03/15/2021. The issuer is identified as YOIGO. SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic

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

obligation of the controller (Article 6 (1) (c)) or to perform a public interest task or exercise public authority paragraph (e)). Article 6 (3) of the Data Protection

meaning of this section. (p. 524) Article 4:34 In addition to the obligation to provide information as laid down in Article 4:20, the provider has an obligation

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

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

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

completely determined by it. This already follows from Article 1.3, Article 20.3 and Article 93.1 No. 4a of the Basic Law. According to these, the commitment

ePrivacy Directive (Ley 34/2002, Servicios de la Sociedad de la Información y ComercioElectrónico - LSSI). In particular if, under Article 22 LSSI, the controller

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

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 processing

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in the sections 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law. " FIFTH: Article 15 of the RGPD provides that: "one. The interested

informative to the claimed entity, in accordance with the provisions of article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on the protection of personal data

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

(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)

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

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

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

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

disclose further details. Whether the complainant's right to access under Article 15 GDPR has been violated. The AEPD confirmed that CaixaBank's response was

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

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

request data were not personal data and were therefore not included in Article 15 GDPR. They claimed that such data (educational data) were regulated by different

provided for in Article 12.3 of the GDPR, nor informed the claimants of a possible reason for its inaction as required by article 12.4 of the GDPR. It also considers

blocked and retained the data according to Article 32 of the Spanish Data Protection Act (LOPD). This Article obliges controllers to block and retain personal

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

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

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

(definition) Article 4.1: Data subject (definition) Article 4.2: Processing (definition) Article 4.3: Restriction of processing (definition) Article 4.4 : Profiling

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

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

in relation to proceedings under Article 78(1) of the GDPR. The Court notes that Article 58(4) and Article 78 of the GDPR give expression to the right to

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.

breach Article 13 GDPR even if the contact form is not operational? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) held that the defendant, PSI, violated Article 13 GDPR by failing

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

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

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

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

defendant within the meaning of Article 4 of the GDPR. The defendant is therefore a controller within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR. b. 44 The Senate is convinced

(definition) Article 4.1: Data subject (definition) Article 4.2: Processing (definition) Article 4.3: Restriction of processing (definition) Article 4.4: Profileing

ends and means of such activity, by virtue of article 4.7 of the GDPR. Article 4 section 12 of the GDPR broadly defines “violations of security of personal

authentication via a third service provider cannot constitute a breach of Article 6 of the GDPR when it implies that the personal data of the data subjects are not

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

"private life" in Article 8.1 ECHR (Wittwer in Schwimann, ABGB-Takom4 § 1328a Rz 3; Danzl in KBB5 § 1328a ABGB Rz 3; RV 173 BlgNR 22nd GP 17). 1.4 'Personal rights'

investigation granted to the control authorities in article 57.1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). Thus, dated 12/04/20, an information request is addressed

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

the general rule of Article 15 (1) (a), c) and d) of the GDPR by not giving substantive, specific answers to the request under Article 15 and by sharing

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

limitation as used in Article 5 of the GDPR and that Article 17(1)(d) of the GDPR also does not apply.c. Is the method of registration inadequate?4.14. [applicant]

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

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

Hague October 4, 2022, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2022:2100, para. 3.1-3.13. 4 Conclusion 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Exhibit 4 to the introductory

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

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

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

against the controller for the alleged infringement of Article 21 LSSI, as defined in Article 38(4)(d) LSSI. The controller reacted to the allegations with

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 SUWI

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 for

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

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

controller, under Article 24 and 32 of the GDPR, which led to a breach of the security of personal data under Article 4(12) of the GDPR, and no proof that

wearing a protective mask did not consitute personal data according to Article 4(1) GDPR because it was impossible for the average person to identify the individual

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

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

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

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

paragraph 1a Basic Law Article 5(1), first sentence VIG § 1, § 2, § 3, § 4 para. 4, § 5 para. 1, para. 4 p. 1, § 6 para. 1, para. 3, para. 4 Regulation (EU) 2017/625

17(1)(c) GDPR, by its logical and systematic context, also applies to the right to object under Article 21(6) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 21(6) GDPR, where personal

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

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

- Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/4 The exposed facts suppose, on the part of the claimed, the commission of the infraction of article 22.2 of the LSSI. This offense

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)

(threethousand euros), for violation of article 22.2) of the LSSI Law, typified as “slight” in theArticle 38.4.g) of the aforementioned Law.SECOND: REQUIRE

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)

classified content (index) of the Google search engine. 4. Because according to Article 17 para. 1 of the GDPR, "the data subject has the right to request from

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

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

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

Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/5In accordance with the provisions of article 39.1. c) of the LSSI, minor infractions canwill be

violation of Article 7.3 of Organic Law 15/1999, of December 13, of Protection of Personal Data (hereinafter LOPD), typified in the Article 44.4.b) of the

mentioned in the Art. 14 GDPR. 4) No, in the assessment of the President of UODO, sending out information related to Art. 14 GDPR by regular mail to the

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

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

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, ordered

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

according to Article 4, point 11, as well as the Restrictions according to Article 7 GDPR. (149) According to Article 5 (1) point b) of the GDPR, personal

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

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

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

for infringing the following provisions: -Article 17 GDPR – Right to Erasure - €50000 fine -Article 32 GDPR – Failure to implement appropriate technical

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

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

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

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

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

SL EU 119, Article 34 of the Law on the Implementation of the General Regulation on Data Protection ("People's newspaper" No. 42/18) of Article 41 and Article

based comply with Article 13 of the GDPR? The Spanish DPA found that the facts constituted an infringement for violation of Article 13 of the RGPD, and

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

FOUNDATIONS OF LAW Yo Competence In accordance with the provisions of article 43.1 of Law 34/2002, of July 11, of services of the information society and electronic

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

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

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

under a legal obligation to process these data. Article 29 of the Croatian Labour Act and Article 5(4) of the Labour Law Rulebook (Official Gazette, no

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

Ms. 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

6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/7with Article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or Article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), and this is notbased

"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

sedeagpd.gob.es 4/7 Article 22 section 4 LOPDGDD (LO 3/2018, December 5) provides the following: “The duty of information provided for in article 12 of Regulation

of thethe law establishes a series of limitations. Article 1 of the Organic Law4/1997, of August 4, which regulates the use of video cameras by theState

and 13 GDPR? Is the information provided to data subjects throughout the subscription process in compliance with the provisions of Article 13 GDPR? Does

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 however

gob.es 4/9 This infraction is typified in Article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers such as: 'failure to provide access in breach of Article 58(1)'

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

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

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

[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

a claim under Article 15 GDPR entitles the data subject to be provided with copies of their personal data and whether Article 15(3) GDPR contains an independent

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

sanction Vodafone in accordance with Article 83(5)(e) GDPR, for the non-compliance with an order pursuant to Article 58(1) GDPR. For this infringement, the AEPD

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

the inspected with section 4 of chapter 4 of the GDPR. 3. […] the inspectorate [is active in the field of transport] […]. 4. The controlled has approximately

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

(definition) Article 4.1: Data subject (definition) Article 4.2: Processing (definition) Article 4.3: Restriction of processing (definition) Article 4.4 : Profiling

its investigation, the Romanian DPA found violation Article 32(4) GDPR, Article 34 GDPR and Article 4(5) Law no. 506/2004 on the processing of personal data

“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

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

gob.es Page 4 11/4In this sense, Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on the Protection ofPersonal Data and guarantee of digital rights article 6.1 of the

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

defendant pursuant to Article 100(1) °WOG, since that first defendant does not appear to be a data controller in accordance with Article 4(7) AVG for the facts

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

States ”. The violation of article 32 of the RGPD is typified in article 83.4.a) of the aforementioned RGPD in the following terms: "4. Violations of the following

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

complainant had a right to object to processing for marketing purposes under Article 21 GDPR. Despite no further contact being made the company, the AEPD still fined

the rights of the data subject, violated Article 12 of the Decree. Article 15 (4), Article 15 (1) and Article 18 (1) (c) respectively. The Obliged - a

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

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

Protection 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

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

officer, article 39 of the RGPD attributes to him the function of cooperate with said authority. Similarly, the domestic legal system, in article 65.4 of the

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Móviles España, S.A.U. (the defendant) for the infringement of Article 6(1) of the GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

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

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

third party, breach Article 6(1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) referred to the principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a)), as well

in line with the principle of lawfulness in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as none of the conditions of Article 6 GDPR were satisfied. The data disclosed in the land

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

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

Datatilsynet has legal grounds to impose such requests for information as per Article 58(1) GDPR. Note that this decision doesn't revolve around the initial complaints

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

decision stated: - Pursuant to Article 100, §1, 9 WOG, to order processing in accordance with with Articles 5.1.f, 5.2, 24 and 32 GDPR, in which in particular

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

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 2016/679 of the European

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

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

provisions of the article 84.3 of the LGT, and the offenses typified in articles 38.3 c), d) and i) and 38.4 d), g) and h) of Law 34/2002, of July 11,

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

aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/11i) impose an administrative fine in accordance with article 83, in addition to or instead ofthe measures

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

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

S.A.U. with NIF A-65559296, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www

unequivocal consent to the processing of his personal data according to Article 4(11) GDPR. The AEPD noted that to determine whether FEDA, having regard to the

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

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

Member States ”. The violation of article 32 is classified in article 83.4.a) of the cited GDPR in the following terms: "4. Violations of the following provisions

authority (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

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

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

violation of Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that were clear indications that the defendant infringed Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR, principles relating

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

defendant) for the infringement of Article 6(1) of the GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early voluntary payment of the corresponding part (48,000 €) of the

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

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

Regional Court of Munich. The applicant based theirs claims principally on the GDPR and the German Civil Code (BGB). The Court emphasised the need to implement

infringement of article 21.1 of the LSSI, typified in Article 38.4.d) of theLSSI, a sanction of warning.B) For an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD

(articles 12 and 14 of the GDPR); A breach of his right of access (article 15 of the GDPR); A breach of Article 28 of the GDPR with regard to its status

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

be regarded as the controller within the meaning of Article 4 under 7 GDPR. The legal framework 4.4. [Applicants] argue that Uber has infringed their right

Health Care (152/1990). Article 1 (2), Article 4 (2), Article 4 (7), Article 4 (12), Article 5 (1) (f), Article 5 (2), Article 9 (1), 24 of the General

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

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

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

images, in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) found that the defendant's conduct violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as a broader principle

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

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

refers to older national laws, instead of GDPR. Does an non-updated privacy policy infringe Article 13 GDPR? Shoud the AEPD calculate the fine by taking

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

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

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

sanction procedure against Vodafone España, S.A.U. for infringing Article 6(1) GDPR, as the defendant agreed to a voluntary payment of the corresponding

constitutes personal data according with Article 4(1) GDPR therefore its processing falls within the scope of GDPR. The DPA also analysed whether the controller

2002/58, read in conjunction with Article 2 (h) of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679 4 Article 6 (11) and Article 6 (1) (a) do not have to be interpreted

S.A.U., with NIF A80907397, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 1. APPOINT Mr. D.D.D

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

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

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

inform the affected parties as provided for in Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. According to Article 30(1) GDPR a record must be kept by the responsible

pursuant to Article 4(2) of the GDPR, and the applicant operating and managing the Facebook page is a controller pursuant to Article 4(7) of the GDPR, given

imposed a fine of €60000 for the violating Article 5(1)(d) GDPR and €30000 for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in

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

an alleged violation of article 6 of the GDPR typified as an infringement of basic principles for processing in article 83.5 GDPR. In determining the amount

violated Article 6(1)GDPR, for processing personal data without a legal basis. Hence, the AEPD decided to fine Telefónica for the violation of Article 6(1)GDPR

(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

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

signed by C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/14 the customer and send this copy to "Docout" for custody. Docout reviews

proportionate, and dissuasive per Article 83(1) GDPR, and so the EDPB adopted a binding resolution in accordance with Article 65 GDPR to settle the dispute. The

assessments. 4.2.1. Exemption under Article 15 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 4 The right to access is limited, among other things. Article 15 (1) of

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

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

stopping of a driving licence - pursuant to Article 102(1)(4) of the Act on Vehicle Drivers in connection with Article 7(1)(1) and (2) of the Act of 20 March

defendant. 4.3. The request to delete the BKR registration must be regarded as a request under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Article 34 of the

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

not having complied with Article 13 GDPR. A claimant filed a complaint with the DPA to report several infringements of the GDPR coming from the Asturian

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

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

States ”. The violation of article 32 of the RGPD is typified in article 83.4.a) of the aforementioned RGPD in the following terms: "4. Violations of the following

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

consent obtained was not unambiguous and free, violating Article L.34-5 CPCE and Article 4 GDPR. Secondly, regarding the legal basis for the telephone canvassing

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

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

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

provisions of article 6 of the LOPDGDD:"Article 6. Treatment based on the consent of the affected party1. In accordance with the provisions of article 4.11 of

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

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

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

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

punishable under Article 83(4)(a) GDPR. Assessing the circumstances that modify the responsibility contemplated in Article 83(2) GDPR, in this case, the

paragraph 3.3. Legal Protection' of the AVG Implementation Act, Article 34 reads as follows: Article 34. Applicability of the General Administrative Law Act by

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

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

under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is not a valid legal basis for the processing of cookies. The Italian DPA also held that the controller violated Article 122 of

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)

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

be a possibility to withdraw consent at any time, as required also by Article 7 GDPR. Moreover, a cookie banner should inform the user of a website about

from articles L. 34-5 of the CPCE and 7, paragraph 1, of the GDPR, as clarified by the provisions of article 4, paragraph 11, of the GDPR, is based on 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

unlawful processing data from a public registry without a legal basis under Article 6 GDPR. A citizen filled a complaint with the AEPD regarding the unlawful processing

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

According to Article 94 of the GDPR "references to the repealed directive must be understood as references to the [GDPR]". 84. Under Article 4, paragraph

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

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

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

method that does not meet the requirements for consent Art. 4 Z 11 GDPR and Art. 7 Para. 2 GDPR. 4.) Against this background and in view of the fact that according

drones equipped with cameras a personal personal data in the sense of Article 4 GDPR ? Did the Ministry of Interior comply with the French Data Protection

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:

issues a reprimand under Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. After this, the DPA draws attention to the fact that pursuant of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, data must be processed

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

claimant’s signature constitute a breach under the GDPR? The AEPD held that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) GDPR, as they had processed the claimant’s data without

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

violation of article 32, paragraph 1, GDPR and article 13, paragraph 1, sub, GDPR BZ should end these violations as soon as possible. article58, paragraph2

2023 standard B-VG Art 133 Paragraph 4 DSG §24 DSG §4 GDPR Art 12 GDPR Art 15 GDPR Art 15 Paragraph 1 litc GDPR Art77 UWG §26b paragraph 1 B-VG Art. 133

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

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

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

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

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

(f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(c) and

Point 6 of Article 3 Act no. 90/2018 and item 7 of Article 4. of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, cf. and the first and second paragraphs. Article 4 Epidemiology

art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32 sec. 1 and 2, as well as art. 83 sec. 1 - 3, art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) and art. 83 sec. 5 lit. a) Regulation

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

Data Protection Regulation. Pursuant to Article 8 (3) no. 2 UWG in conjunction with § Article 8 (1) and Article 3a UWG authorise competition associations

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

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

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

under Article 17(3) GDPR. Two doctors sued a platform for deletion of their basic profile set up on the platform without their consent under Article 17 GDPR

that Marriott breached Article 33 GDPR. (6) Article 34 6.76. The NOI contained a provisional finding of a breach of Article 34 GDPR. Marriott submitted detailed

comply with the principle of accuracy set out in Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter d GDPR?"1. Should Article 16, GDPR be interpreted as meaning that, with a view

with Article 4 WOG. 17. First, it is clear that the content of the disputed e-mail messages constitute personal data within the meaning of Article 4.1. AVG

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

paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 in accordance with this article is effective, proportionate and dissuasive in each individual case. 72. According to Article 83(2) of

required by Article 12 GDPR. The DPA clarified that the right of information and the right of access are distinct. An access request under Article 15 GDPR is not