Search results

undertakings”, following Article 4(19) GDPR, is constituted by “a controlling undertaking and its controlled undertakings”. The GDPR, however, does not define

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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 enable

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

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

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

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

provisions of the GDPR require the controller to keep track of individual recipients. For example, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR and Article 19 GDPR require the disclosure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Regulation (GDPR), Article 68 GDPR, p. 1059 (Oxford University Press 2020); Brink, Wilhelm, in Wolff, Brink, DS-GVO, Article 69 GDPR, margin numbers 4-6 (C.H

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

(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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

in force for more than 4 years after the GDPR’s entrance into force. Responding to requests regarding the applicability of the GDPR in Slovenia, the IP issued

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

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

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

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

motion. Its powers are described under Article 8 of the law "Informatique et Libertés". Under Article R311-1(4) of the French code of administrative justice

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

administrative fines referred to in Article 66. It may cancel, reduce or increase those fines within the limits of Article 66. The EDPS, as an independent

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

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

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

HA RK 19-693 C/10/576074 / HA RK 19-694, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576083 / HA RK 19-697, C/10/576085 / HA RK 19-698, C/10/576094 / HA RK 19-702,

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

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

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR; 2. Did not provide the complainant with enough information prior to the processing, in violation of Article 13 GDPR; 3. Processed

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

HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576083 / HA RK 19-697, C/10/576085 / HA RK 19-698, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576094 / HA RK 19-702

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

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

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

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

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, 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

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

very serious in article 72.1. e) from the LOPDGDD, with 10,000 euros. -article 13 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5 b) of the GDPR, and for the

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

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

exemption is based on Article 85(2) GDPR. According to Article 26(3) of the 2018 Act, certain GDPR provisions (listed in Article 26(9)) will not apply

administrative fine for the infringement of Article 6(1) or Article 6(1)(b) GDPR meet the requirements of Article 4(24) GDPR. 504. The EDPB decides that the relevant

decision under Article 66 GDPR when the lead SA fails to respond to provide mutual assistance within a month as per Article 61(8) GDPR. The CJEU adopted

the following: Article 66 GDPR gives the possibility for a procedure of urgency and from this article (and Article 66 and Article 62 GDPR), the European

pursuant to Article 17(1)(d) GDPR since the data was unlawfully processed. The defendant claimed that its activities fall under exception in (Article 85 GDPR)

various GDPR violations (including the principles of legality, transparency and fairness, minimisation and security among others). In total, 4 complaints

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

for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.d) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. SIXTH: On October 28, 19, written allegations were received

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

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

this from happening, in violation with Article 24(1), Article 24(2), and Article 25(1) GDPR. According to Article 24(4) of the Finish Data Protection Act,

its Article 35, that the concept of personal data and the possibilities for processing and protection will be defined by the law. The same article reaffirms

Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens disagrees: Article 78(2) GDPR defines the applicable time frame in line with Article 4:13(1) of the Dutch Administrative law

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD typified in Article 83.5.a) of the RGPD and considered very serious, for the purposes of prescription, in Article 72.1

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

on final judgments did not comply with Article 25(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for

democratic legitimation necessary under Article 23(1) second sentence in conjunction with Article 20(1) and (2) and Article 79(3) of the Basic Law. Since data

lawfulness, the Litigation Chamber concludes that Article 5.1.a. of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 6 of the GDPR have not been complied with with regard to

basis under Article 6(1) GDPR. In light of this, the DPA issued a fine of €70,000 to másLUZ Energía (SIE) by virtue of Article 83(5) GDPR for unlawful

even pseudonymised data (Art. 4 Para. 5 GDPR) from the term personal data are recorded in accordance with Art. 4 Para. 1 GDPR. It is undeniable that the MB

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

"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

with the principles of article 5 par. 1 GDPR. It is no coincidence that the GDPR includes accountability (see Article 5 para. 2 GDPR) in the regulation of

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

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

investigations the CNIL found five breaches of the GDPR: -         Violation of the right to object, Article 21(2) GDPR: no procedure was implemented to ensure effectively

the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR. Furthermore, the erasure or destruction of personal data is a form of processing based on Article 4(2) GDPR. The DPA has

within the meaning of Article 4 no. 2 of the GDPR and the term "transfer" within the meaning of Article 44 et seq. of the GDPR. GDPR had to be differentiated

paragraph 3, all of article 35, and paragraph a) of paragraph 4 of article 83, all GDPR, with a fine of up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of annual turnover

Pursuant to Article 83 GDPR in conjunction with Article 4 No. 7 and 8 GDPR, fines for violations of the GDPR pursuant to Article 83(4) to (6) GDPR are 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

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.

none of the exceptions in Article 82 of the Data Protection Act were applicable, and Apple had to obtain consent (Article 4(11) GDPR) before using the identifiers

(e) and 13(2)(a) GDPR. Thus, it ordered the controller to comply with the GDPR. In addition it fined € 10,000 under Article 58(2)(i) GDPR for the violation

the claimed party, for the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. Once the initiation agreement was notified,

under Article 32 GDPR? 4) Does Article 82(3) GDPR allow the controller to be exempt from liability for damages if the data breach as defined by 4(12) GDPR

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

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

regarded as an access request under Article 15(1) GDPR. According to Recital 63 GDPR, the right of access under Article 15 GDPR serves data subjects to be informed

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

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

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

his access request, provided an incomplete dataset in English. Could Article 15 GDPR be exercised although the personal are expected to be already possessed

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

included within the framework of data protection. Therefore, Article 16 GDPR cannot be applied. Article 16 refers to inaccurate personal data, not to the rectification

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

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

Sentence 2 GDPR with reference to operational reasons as data protection officer. ECLI:DE:BAG:2023:060623.U.9AZR383.19.0 - 4 - - 4 - 9 AZR 383/19 The plaintiff

by definition, personal data within the meaning of Article 2(a) Directive 95/46, now Article 4(1) GDPR since they must enable Constantin Film Verleih to

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

|GDPR_Article_3=Article 99 GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_3=Article 99 GDPR |GDPR_Article_4= |GDPR_Article_Link_4= |GDPR_Article_5= |GDPR_Article_Link_5= |GDPR_Article_6=

|GDPR_Article_3=Article 99 GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_3=Article 99 GDPR |GDPR_Article_4= |GDPR_Article_Link_4= |GDPR_Article_5= |GDPR_Article_Link_5= |GDPR_Article_6=

meaning of Article 6.4 Old Law. 2 DSGVO, which enables additional national deviations from the purpose, the compatibility test under Article 6.4, old version

adversely affect the rights and freedom of the others, pursuant to Article 15(4) GDPR. Also, it found that the national law - Money Laundering and Terrorist

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

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

latter of the possibility to exercise their right of access according to Article 15 GDPR, regardless of the fact that the data controller is a public or private

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

Chamber Decision date: 31.08.2020 File number: 1 K 90.19 Document type: Judgment Source: Legal norms: § 59 (4) BDSG, § 113 (5) sentence 1 VwGO Tenor The defendant

commercial register by law, this does not mean that these data may be Page 4 4 (4) re-use and disclose for any purpose. Data that can be unrestricted reused

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

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

obligation (Article 4:32 § 1 Wft). Therefore, Article 6(1)(c) GDPR was relevant. However, the Court highlighted that the phrase "at least on" in Article 6(1)

According to Article 4(3) TEU, it is the task of national courts to ensure judicial protections of a data subjects under EU law. Article 19(1) TEU requires

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

receipts is framed in the definition of personal data contained in Article 4(1) of the GDPR because they contain “information relating to an identified or

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

health data under Article 4(15) GDPR. Data such as name, phone number, email do not qualify as health data per se but in the context of COVID-19 contact tracing

and Article of 11Law No. 3471/2006, in accordance with Article 13(58i2) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 83(1)(a) of the GDPR. 5 of the GDPR, and

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

should comply with the criteria set out in Article 6. (4) General Regulations. The application of Article 6 (4) of the General Regulation to a change in

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

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.

* 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

The Administrative Court of Mainz (VG Mainz) held that Article 9 GDPR does not apply to a processor who captures special categories of data on camera,

asked whether the joint control of data in accordance with Article 4(7) and Article 26(1) GDPR must be interpreted 'exclusively' as involving deliberately

Spanish DPA dismissed a complaint about alleged violations of Articles 4(1) and 19 GDPR for publishing a photo of the data subject without consent due to lack

right to privacy. Health data are sensitive data covered by Article 9 GDPR. According to Article 137 of the Italian Data Protection Code, health data can

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

services did not violate the data subject's right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR when refused to delete information on the data subject's ethnicity,

of public space respect Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR? The AEPD held that the installation of a video surveillance system under Article 22 LOPDGDD must always

processing. Under Article 36(5) GDPR, the Italian Ministry of Health has submitted the Data Protection Impact Assessment of the "Covid-19 Alert System" (and

whether Article 6 GDPR provides a legal basis for processing credit cards details and whether the processing is compliant with Article 5 GDPR. It also

defined in the first paragraph. Article 4 of the Act, cf. Points 2 and 4 Article 3 of the Act and points 1 and 2. Article 4 of the Regulation. According to

information to be retained by the defendant any longer. 4. Pursuant to Article 17 (1) of the GDPR , a data subject has the right to obtain erasure of personal

to be qualified as a health data pursuant to Article(4)(15) GDPR and that the scope of protection of Article 9(2) must be taken into account as a standard

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

increase or decrease. 4.4 Conclusion The AP sets the total fine at €525,000. 4For the justification, see paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. 18/19,Date Unidentified

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

control authorities in article 57.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (RGPD). Thus, with dates 04/02/19 and 04/14/19; 09/19/19 and 10/20/19 go requirements and

twenty thousand euros), under¬ Article 6.1 (a) and Article 5.1 (a) of the GDPR, under consideration as ‘very serious’, in¬ Article 71 (1) (a) and (b), respectively

infringement in the context of Article 82(1) of the GDPR. cc) The answer to the legal question of how Article 82 (1) of the GDPR is to be interpreted against

regards to a violation of Article 7 GDPR, for gathering consent in a generic way. To fine the controller €3000 for infringing Article 22(2) LSSI, for installing

necessary according to Article 17(3)(b) GDPR and Article 17(3)(e) GDPR. The controller stated that, according to Chapter 8 Section 1(2)(4) of the Finnish Criminal

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

authorities in Article 57.1 of Regulation (EU)2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter RGPD), Thus, withdate 04/01/19 and 04/12/19, an information

based are contested by [the appellant]. 3.4 The Court of Appeal will first jointly discuss grievances 1, 2 and 4 with which [the appellant] challenges the

the alert on the SIS system under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. The reason for the data subject invoking the GDPR is that Article 53(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1861

21(2) and 21(4) GDPR. Moreover, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c), 5(2), 6(1), 12(2), 21(2) and 21(4) GDPR. The controller

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

"lifting". (4.2) Exclusions (4.2.1) GDPR and AO restrictions 145 According to Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the person concerned (Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR) has a right

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

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

Ordinance, cf. Article 4 no. 2. The search engine provider is responsible for the processing of personal data this connection, cf. Article 4 no. 7. This is

ruling and the GDPR; breach of Article 28 GDPR (the choice of a the processor does not provide sufficient guarantees); breach of Article 32 GDPR (lack of appropriate

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

its article 6-III; Having regard to the emergency law n° 2020-290 of 23 March 2020 to deal with the COVID epidemic - 19, in particular its article 4; Having

infringement of the GDPR, articles: -12 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.b) of the GDPR and 72.1.k) of the LOPDGDD, and -5.1.c) of the GDPR, in accordance

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

minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and contrary to the obligation to obtain the freely given consent of the data subject under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, when refusal

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

that a valid legal basis would be either Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, or Article 6(1)(d) GDPR or Article 9(2)(b) GDPR. The Data protection authority (the UOOU)

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

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

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

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

authorities in Article 57 (1) of the GDPR.Thus, on 31/10/18, an information injunction was sent to the entity in question. THIRD:By letter dated 18/01/19, in the

information in accordance with Article 13 GDPR. In addition, the HDPA found that the Ministry violated the obligation of Article 35(9) GDPR in relation to the expression

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)

subject of its inability to respond to the access request according to Article 12(4) GDPR. The complainant exercised their right of access asking the DPO 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

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

government's COVID-19 measures did not allow for suitable alternatives and that the surveillance had a legal basis in Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The plaintiffs

Page 4 4 (7) On November 8, 2015, I filed a complaint with the Data Protection Inspectorate (AKI) and demanded that the AKI rapidly implement Article 58

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

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

different legal grounds are relevant in this case, such as Article 15 GDPR, sections 15 and 19 of the Danish Law Enforcement Act and provision of the Public

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

in-depth discussion HE THOUGHT ACCORDING TO THE LAW. 1. According to the article. That’s 4 bets.7 of General Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of individuals

address from my list of recipients, in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 GDPR. 4) He proceeded to remove the recipient’s e-mail address from the list

(‘seeding’) be regarded as a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, even if the individual pieces as such are unusable

cookies, as per Article 22(2) Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI). This law regulates cookies, connected to Article 13 GDPR. The decision

gob.es 13/22 3.- On 09/01/19, this Agency requested the entity in question information on the reported events. 4.- On 22/02/19, the entity complained of

enshrined in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The Finish DPA further ordered the controller to bring its processing activities into compliance under Article 58(2)(d)

the decision of April 4, 2019 of the board to be well-founded. This decision qualifies for annulment due to violation of article 4: 5, first paragraph,

the DPA held that it had violated Article 12(3) GDPR (the controller failed to answer within a month), Article 12(4) GDPR (The controller failed to provide

minimisation principle related, as per Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and the lack of transparent information, as per Article 12 GDPR. The decision is the consequence

database. The request for erasure under Article 17(1) GDPR is not applicable, because under Article 17(3)(e) GDPR, the processing was necessary for the defence

other legal basis for processing under Article 6 GDPR, the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR. Taking into account the low income

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

applicant in the sense of the legal basis of Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR.47The applicant cannot refer to Article 13 (4) GDPR in this regard. According to this, it

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

one claimed.THIRD: On 11/21/19, the claim is TRANSFERRED to thedenounced entity, receiving answering document dated 12/19/19.FUNDAMENTALS OF LAWIBy virtue

(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

challenged before the Court of Appeal on 19 February 2021. However, the Belgian DPA withdrew the above decision on 19 May 2021, reopened the proceedings before

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

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

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

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

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

(Datenschutzbehörde - DSB) held that the doctor had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 9(1) and (2) GDPR as the patients had not given their ecplicit consent

that the article’s publication was in violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, when read in line with Article 85 GDPR. Article 5(1)(c) outlines

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

it was not possible to rely on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Secondly, the DPA recalled that, according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, processing of personal data on

against the respondent, for the alleged infringement of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. In view of the foregoing, the following

derogant rule, based on the interpretation of Article 95 GDPR in the line of the Rec (173) GDPR and Article 1(2) and 15a of the ePrivacy Directive. The CNIL

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

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

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

violation of the Article 12 of the GDPR, in conjunction with Article 17 of the GDPR. V Classification of the infringement of article 12 of the GDPR The aforementioned

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

in violation of Article 13 GDPR. The questionnaire to subscribe to Nestor did not include all the information required by Article 13 GDPR: there was no information

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

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SEVENTH: Notification of the aforementioned

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

did not acknowledge that with the introduction of Title 8.4 in the Awb on the basis of Article 8:4, paragraph 1, opening words and under f of the Awb, the

2012 to 2019 that it was operating. Following Article 83(5)(a)GDPR, read in the lights of Recital (148) GDPR, the AEPD issued a reprimand to the owner of

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

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

on final judgments did not comply with Article 25(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA reprimanded the controller for

processing of personal data within the meaning of Article 4 GDPR and is it justified on the basis of Article 6 GDPR? Can the controller raise the argument that

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

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

objected to its processing pursuant to Article 21(1) of the GDPR (Article 17(1)(a), (c)(1) and (d) of the GDPR). A request for erasure would therefore

2016/679 and article 11toun.3471 / 2006, according to article 58par.2 of the GCP in in combination with article 83 par. 5 of the GCC, and with article 21 par

Section 49 of the Wbp has been met. 4.1 The next question to be answered is whether the claimant has suffered damage. 4.2 With reference to Section 6:106(1)(b)

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

Please refer to the Dutch original for more details. 1/4 Dispute room Decision 57/2022 of April 19, 2022 File number : DOS-2021-01206 Subject: Camera surveillance

personal data under Article 17 GDPR. On 21 September 2021, the controller confirmed the deletion, as required by Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR. However, the complainant

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

explicit consent was needed under Article 9(2) GDPR and the conditions for consent pursuant to Article 4(11) GDPR had to be assessed in light of the relevant

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

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

controller for the purposes of Article 4(7) GDPR, and Company A was the processor for the purposes of Article 4(8) GDPR. The DPA found that both Companies

the provisions of the GDPR and the national data protection law. In the context of the worldwide health crisis caused by Covid-19, the French Ministry of

thus personal data as referred to in article 4, preambles under 1, of the AVG. 2/20 Date Unidentified February 4, 2021 [confidential] From the letter from

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 DPA held that the recordings captured personal data pursuant to Article 4(1) GDPR. Since the controller did not use the recordings, they had not assessed

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

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

union enshrined in Article 7 of the Spanish Constitution. Therefore, such processing would be lawful in accordance with Article 6(1) GDPR. Share your comments

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

and correct processing […] »(Article 6, paragraph 2, GDPR), with the consequence that the provision contained in art. 19, paragraph 3, of the Code (in

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

with the services of the CNIL in application of article 31 of the GDPR 19. In law, Article 31 of the GDPR provides that "the controller and the subcontractor

approved appeal of Article 5(1)(a), Article 12(1), Article 13(1) and Article 13(2). The appeal for Article 5(1)(c), Article 6(1) and Article 8 GDPR was not approved

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

norm therefore by article 19 of the LOPD as business data. We consider relevant the legal basis by which, according to the article Article 65 of the LOPD

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

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

definition of the concept of consent in the data protection regulation article 4, No. 11. Article 4 of the Data Protection Regulation, no. 11 states that consent

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

communications under Article 14 GDPR were not legally necessary, as in the present case, Article 23 GDPR restrictions were applicable. Article 23 GDPR establishes

es Page 4 4/5IIIThis infraction is typified in article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers as such: “ nofacilitate access in breach of article 58, paragraph

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

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

under Article 36 GDPR) regarding the compliance of the envisaged processing with the GDPR. According to the Commission, the legal basis was Article 6(1)(e)

personal data within the meaning of Article 4, opening words and (1) of the AVG. Based on Article 2, paragraph 1 and Article 3, paragraph 2, of the AVG, the

Protection Commissioner in cases 834/532/18 and 8212/161/19 4. In cases 834/532/18 and 8212/161/19, the data protection commissioner evaluated the registrar's

powers delegated to the Guarantor. Pursuant to Article 78 of the RGPD, Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of Legislative Decree no. 150/2011, this measure

of article Article 24.1, and in relation to the obligations referred to in the previous section, The information obligation provided for in Article 5 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'

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

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

- Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/5EUR 000 000 maximum or, in the case of a company, an equivalent amountat a maximum of 4% of the total global annual turnover

possible. 1 Article 6:2, preamble and under b, in conjunction with Article 7:1, first paragraph, preamble and under f, of the Awb 2 Article 6:12, second

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

jurisprudence of the CJEU (e.g. C-439/19). Thus, the data described above was found to be personal data per Article 4 GDPR. The CNIL then assessed whether the

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

gather valid consent in line with the GDPR? In building its argumentation, the DPA also relied on Recital 32 GDPR, as well as paragraph 62 of the CJEU Planet49

Constitution, Article 19 TFEU and Article 47 CFR. As Mr A's mandate and termination had not been assessed in the light of the provisions of the GDPR, the Supreme

has fulfilled the purpose of Article 15 of the GDPR. [Applicant] cannot therefore derive any right from Article 15 of the GDPR to a copy of the documents

context of Articles 40 and 41 GDPR, in particular from Article 40 Paragraph 4 in conjunction with Article 41 Paragraph 2 lit. c) GDPR, namely further that a monitoring

controller within the meaning of Article 4(7) of the AVG. 3.4 Violation regarding the reporting of a violation 3.4.1 Introduction Article 33(1) of the AVG stipulates

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

under Article 15 GDPR." The DPA rejected the request for review. Genealogical research on a family surname did not fall within the scope of Article 15 GDPR

Our ref: DI-2021-4355 5(6) Date:2023-01-19 Choice of intervention Article 58(2) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR give IMY the authority to impose an administrative

that, in cases of video surveillance, Article 22.4 LOPDGDD provides that the duty of disclosure in Article 12 GDPR may be fulfilled by placing a sign near

paragraph k) of Article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, Article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", it provides: "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k) of

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

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

personal data (Article 5 GDPR). 9 4. Conclusion 4.1 Having regard to all the above facts, as stated and, based on the powers granted to me by Article 58 of the

competences.12 Article 4, §2, second paragraph of the WOG.13 GBA Disputes Chamber, Decision on the merits 19/2020 of 19 April 2020.14 Article 5, §1, 2 ° Law

to in Article 9 of the GDMPR in order to infer that such consent would not be necessary for data not referred to in that Article, since Article 4 of 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

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

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

system with an alleged focus on the complainant's house, infringing article 5(3) GDPR which enshrines the principle of data minimisation. The AEPD examined

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

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

as a data subject under Article 21(1) GDPR had been violated by the PAR. Did Mrs AAA have a right to object under Article 21 GDPR? Had the PAR infringed

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 4.4.8.2.2.1 _______________

(thirty thousand euros), for violation of article 22.2) of the LawLSSI, typified as “slight” in article 38.4.g) of the aforementioned Law.SECOND: REQUIRING

breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR ("integrity and confidentiality"). Therefore, the Spanish DPA held that there was an infringement of the GDPR. It imposed

which article of the GDPR was violated. However, considering the plaintiff made a request for the removal of her data, it is likely that Article 17 GDPR

violation of Article 6.1 and 13 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: The database of this organization was consulted on April 19, 2023

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]

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

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

breach of the General Data Protection Regulation5. Article 5 (1) (a), Article 5 (2) and Article 13 Article 1 (1) to (2). III.3. JogkövetkezményekIII.3.1. The

authorities in article 57.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter RGPD). So, dated 07/12/19, an informative

according to the introduction of Article 4, this only applies "where this Directive does not provide otherwise". Under Article 8(6) of the Directive, for distance

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

violation of article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in accordance with article 58 par. 2 i' of the GDPR in combination with article 83 par. 5 of the GDPR. The

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

infringement of Article 31 GDPR in conjunction with Article 58(1)(e) GDPR. The AEPD, therefore, agreed to impose a penalty of € 20000 under Article 83(5)(e) GDPR

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

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

according to article 4.1 of the RGPD, is data personal protection and their protection, therefore, is the object of said Regulation. Article 4.2 of the RGPD

thealleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of theRGPD. FIFTH: Consulted the database of this Agency on 02/18/19 it has not beenreceived

CFR Art8 para 11 CFR Art11 para 1 ECHR Art10 para 1 GDPR Art4 no 2 GDPR Art4 no 7 GDPR Art85 para 1 GDPR Art85 para 2 Text GZ: DSB-D123.768/0004-DSB/2019

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

Articles 5(1)(a) GDPR and 13 GDPR. On the other hand, they disagreed with the infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR in relation to Article 9(1) GDPR with regard

( *** POSITION 1) for an infraction of Article 6.1.f) of the GDPR, in accordance with Article 83.5 of the GDPR ”. In the face of it, no allegations have

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

assignment of the assignment, for the activities of DPO, pursuant to Article 19, paragraphs 4 and 10 of Legislative Decree 30 March 2001, n. 165, for a period

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

on the basis of Article 9 (2) (B) GDPR in conjunction with Article 32 GDPR" (see note cited, p. 4) (see footnote cit., p. 5-8). 1.6. On 4.8.2020, at the

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

in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/11 2016/679

correct processing [...]" (Article 6(1)(c) and (e)). 2, RGPD), with the consequence that the provision contained in Article 19, paragraph 3, of the Code

the database of the controller. Therefore, the controller violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The DPA considered several aggravating factors, such as the fact

condition of necessity is maintained under Article 6.1 b) to f) of the GDPR. The article 6.1 of the GDPR replaces Article 7 of the Directive, without the relevant

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

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

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

a violation of Article 12(3) in relation to Article 15 GDPR. The Garante hence applied an administrative fine as per Article 83(5) GDPR. The amount of

her life. Her objection to processing follows from Article 21(1) GDPR. ING argues that Article 21(1) GDPR cannot be relied on in this case because it applies

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

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

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On October 13, 2022, DIGI requests the

- 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

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

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

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

person, using Article 15 as their basis. The Slovenian DPA (IP) was asked for an opinion concerning the scope of GDPR Article 15. Within the GDPR, an individual

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

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

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

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)

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

follows The appeal is dismissed as unfounded. Legal basis: Article 51(1), Article 57(1)(f) and Article 77(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the basic data protection

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

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

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

in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1, preamble and under b, of the GDPR. 4.4. Article 6, paragraph 1, opening words, of the GDPR stipulates that processing

the COVID-19 situation, and that during this period only to a very modest extent waste paper has been disposed of for shredding. 4.1. Article 32 of the

has taken place in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 32 (1) (f) and Article 35. Below is a more detailed review

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4 of the RGPD Once

to article 4.1 of the RGPD, is a piece of information personal and their protection, is therefore the subject of the said Regulation. In Article 4(2) of

violated Article 12 GDPR, as it did not facilitate the data subject´s exercise of their rights, especially the right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR. In view

legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, they must still comply with data protection principles under Article 5 GDPR. In Croatia, many employers

(Italy) Jurisdiction: Italy Relevant Law: Article 36(4) GDPR Type: Advisory Opinion Outcome: n/a Started: Decided: 19.03.2020 Published: Fine: None Parties:

coverage of the image of the third party shall not be required.” 4. As follows from Article 12 (4) of Law 2472/1997, the controller was required to respond to

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

Therefore the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) and (2), Article 6(1), Article 12(1), Article 13(1)(b) and (c) GDPR. The DPA imposed a fine of €50.000

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

the next month to inform the employees in conformity with Article 89 LOPDGDD and Article 13 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

provided for in Article 18 GDPR. As explained by the Court, Article 18(1) GDPR, in particular in paragraph (d), is linked to Article 21(1) GDPR, which guarantees

of article 17 of the GDPR. X Classification of the infringement of article 17 of the GDPR The aforementioned infringement of article 17 of the GDPR supposes

findings 14 2.3.3Legal assessment 17 2.4PhysicalSecurityAccesstoNVIS 19 2.4.1Legal framework 19 2.4.2 Factual findings 19 2.4.3Legal Review 22 2.5Accessright

company for faulty website security (article 32 GDPR) and violation of the storage limitation principle (article 5(1)(e) GDPR). After a complaint in 2018, the

the data subjects, therefore breaching Article 6 GDPR, as well as Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Thirdly, Article 30 GDPR stipulates that the controller must keep

6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/7FOUNDATIONS OF LAWIBy virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each authoritycontrol

Flissenter a violation of the GDPR? Can credit information about a company be considered personal data for the purposes of Article 4(1)(GDPR)? The Datatilsynet held

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

breach of the obligation to inform pursuant to Article 14 of the GDPR 20. According to Article 14 of the GDPR: 1. Where personal data has not been collected

to the claimed, by the alleged violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid

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

accountability (Article 5 (2) and 24 (1), (2) GDPR), privacy by design (Article 25 (1) GDPR) and as controller towards its data processors (Article 28 GDPR). Consequently

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

point 4.7. of the judgment article 6, d) and article 6, e) of the GBA law, but this should be read as article 6.1. d) and Article 6.1. e) of the GDPR. Decision

authorities in article 57.1 of the Regulation(EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter RGPD). So,with dates 19/12/19 and 07/01/20,

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

with NIF G08564379, an infringement of article 5.1.b) GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 GDPR, in relation to Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of 5000

[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

session year 2005-2006, 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)

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

complained party, by the alleged infringement of article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. EIGHTH: The agreement to initiate this sanctioning

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

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

regard to article 83.2 (k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", provides: "2. In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

subjects infringes Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. The AEPD fined the data processor in an amount of 4,000 Euro for the violation of Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. Since the

fine on the defendant and stated he has to comply with Article 5(1)(c) and Article 83(2)(a)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

according to Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and to maintain a record of the processing activities under its responsibility according to Article 30(1) GDPR

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

without references to names. Moreover, (2) it included health data (Article 4(15) GDPR) as the newsletters were send to patients of the respected medical

ofcontroller (article 4.7 of the GDPR), the scope of the GDPR (article3.1 of the GDPR), the right to erasure (article 17 of the GDPR) and its powers (article 58.2of

finding the violation of the provisions of art. 29 and art. 32 para. (2) and (4) of the General Data Protection Regulation. As such, the operator Lugera &

according to article 4.1 of the RGPD, is a piece of information personal and their protection, therefore, is object of said Regulation. In Article 4.2 The RGPD

case fell under the household exception found in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. According to this provision, the GDPR does not apply to the processing of personal data

in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter GDPR), and in

Klarna violate Article 15 of the GDPR? The DPA considered that Klarna failed to process the request within the timeframe required by Article 12(3) and without

may be recorded of the data processing, in violation of Article 13 and Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR. The complainant lodged a complaint with the AEPD about the

on the basis of the notification, Article 57 (1) f) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 38. § Article 1Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the

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

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

right to freely request inspection is infringed. 5.3. The argument fails. 5.4. 5.4. [appellant under 1] has also requested compensation for exceeding the reasonable

or by a third party. The court used Article 9(2)(f) GDPR to interpret legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as including the establishment, exercise

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

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

people affected and the level of damage the elves suffered (article 83.2.4 of the GDPR) 4.1.4. The Data Protection Authority should have taken into account

the sense of Article 4, headings under 12, of the GDPR. What should be clear is that a breach is some type of security incident Article 4, headings under

NIF ***NIF.1, in accordance with article 58.2.d) of the GDPR, for a violation of article 13 of the GDPR typified in article 83.5.b) of the aforementioned

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

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

dissuasive" as per Article 83(1). In addition to a breach of Article 6(1)(f), the lack of organisational measures pursuant to Article 5(2) was weighted

defendant) for the infringement of the accuracy principle, as per Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR. The decision is the consequence of a complaint submitted by another

Privacy Ordinance Article 4 no. 2. For this processing of personal data, the mission assembly is responsible for processing. Article 6 (1) of the Privacy

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

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

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

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

(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

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

the grounds of (i) the absence of a high risk within the meaning of Article 35.5 GDPR and (ii) the fact that the present complaint is only a side dispute

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

lawfulness, fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, and the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR. Additionally, the HDPA held that the

terminated, must be assessed in the light of Article 6 GDPR and not Article 10 GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR provides a sufficient basis for processing. The

the GDPR, as the data falls under Article 9 GDPR and awarded € 800 in emotional damages. The Austrian Business Code cannot override Article 9 GDPR. There

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

states that the party concerned violated Article 83(4)(a) GDPR in conjunction with [Article 32(1) GDPR. Article 32 (1) GDPRby failing, at least with gross

communication service. Therefore, TikTok had to obtain valid consent (Article 4(11) GDPR) from users before using the identifiers. The DPA stated that it should

1 No. 4 DSG 3) a) Section 52 para. 2 no. 7 DSG 2000 in conjunction with § 69 (5) DSG b) Art. 62 Para. 1 No. 4 DSG 4) a) Section 52 para. 2 no. 4 DSG 2000

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

principles of article 5 par. 1 GDPR. It's not a coincidence that the GDPR includes accountability (already mentioned above article 5 par. 2 GDPR) in the regulation

inviolable. Article 17, paragraph 1, preamble and under d, of the GDPR therefore does not give the claimant a right to erasure. Article 21 of the GDPR 7. On

their 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)