Search results

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

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

entitled to erasure under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, as the data processing was not lawful. In any case, the requirements of Article 6 GDPR were no longer met 6

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

conducts under Article 41 GDPR (redacted as "code S***", code M*** and code U***"). These codes had been approved by the DSB under Article 40(5) GDPR. Inverstigations

non-material damage. Article 32(1) GDPR reflects the principle of integrity and confidentiality enshrined in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The controller and the

owed on the basis of Article 15 (4) GDPR. Objected that the information provided to the plaintiff met the requirements of Article 15 GDPR. The marketing classifications

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

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

(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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

meaning of Article 17 (1) (a) GDPR. The storage period of three years is also appropriate and transparent within the meaning of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. The Code

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

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

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

unlike delegated acts made under Article 92 GDPR. Article 93(2) GDPR explicitly provides for the application of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011

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

(see Article 52 GDPR) and shall be provided with various competencies (Articles 55, 56 GDPR), tasks (Article 57 GDPR) and powers (Article 58 GDPR). For

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

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

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

limit the application of the GDPR. You can find further details about the territorial scope in Article 3 GDPR. According to Article 1(2), the Regulation generally

further details see Article 14(1)(d) GDPR. Similar to the ex-ante information in Article 13(1)(e) and 14(1)(e) GDPR, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR requires the controller

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

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

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

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

protected by Article 96 GDPR if it is found to be incompatible with other GDPR provisions. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 96 GDPR It follows

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

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

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

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

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

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

organisation-fined-for-gdpr-rule-breach-1.4255692?mode=amp https://www.irishlegal.com/article/tusla-fined-40-000-in-second-gdpr-breach https://www.dataprotection

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

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

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

subject to the GDPR or, in cases where they are not established in the EU, act within the material and territorial scope of the GDPR. Article 48 GDPR refers to

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

falls outside the scope of Article 57 GDPR should be deemed inadmissible for the purposes of Article 31 GDPR. Article 31 GDPR can be read as a supporting

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

this purpose (Article 52(4)(5)(6) GDPR). Elements of SAs' complete independence are also addressed in Article 53 GDPR and Article 54 GDPR. The CJEU in the

However, Article 5(1)(d) GDPR gives the controller some leeway to continue processing inaccurate data - see more details under Article 5(1)(d) GDPR. Article

Regulation (GDPR) is in Slovenia directly applicable, as well as in other EU member states. There are however problems in the practical use of the GDPR which

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

limited to, security of processing (Article 32(1) GDPR) and the general principles of processing set out in Article 5 GDPR. In confirming the above interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Press 2020). Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. CJEU

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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)

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

explicit wording of Article 81 GDPR does not limit its application to proceedings instigated either under Article 78 GDPR or Article 79 GDPR. Secondly, the

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

under Article 79 GDPR – or both. This flexibility allows for parallel proceedings under both Article 77 GDPR and under Article 79 GDPR. As the GDPR foresees

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

into force of the GDPR. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1073. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

elements in Article 2(1) are fulfilled, the GDPR applies unless the processing falls under one of the exemptions named in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) GDPR. The first

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

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

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

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

with the support of the EDPB in accordance with Article 70(1)(b) GDPR. According to Article 45(5) GDPR, the continued monitoring referred to in paragraph

processing), Article 57 GDPR (tasks of SAs), Article 58 GDPR (powers of SAs), as well as Article 65 GDPR (dispute resolution by the board), Article 63 GDPR (consistency

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

interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. On the erasure obligations under Article 17 GDPR, the CJEU held that under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR SCHUFA will be under

elements. Infringement of Article 6 and 9 GDPR qualifies for the maximum amount for administrative fines as set out in Article 83(5) GDPR: 20,000,000 € or 4%

arguing that it wasn’t a controller within the definition set out under Article 2(d) Directive 95/46 and that NRW did not have legal standing to bring a

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

artistic or literary purposes, only Article 24, Article 26, Article 28, Article 29, Article 32, and Article 40- Article 43 applies, following § 3. Special

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

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

heading of Article 6(1) and the wording “has given” in Article 6(1)(a) support this interpretation. It follows logically from Article 6 and Recital 40 that a

Protection Act 2019 sets exceptions in Article 9(1) GDPR, Article 15 GDPR, Article 16 GDPR, Article 18 GDPR and Article 21 GDPR for scientific or historical research

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

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

by article 32.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) V Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83.5 of the RGPD, the aforementioned article provides

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

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

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notification of the aforementioned start-up

Section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) and Article 4(1) GDPR. Pursuant to the FOIA and the GDPR, the ICO balanced the right to information and the

lawfulness, in violation of article 5(a), 6 and 9 GDPR definition of the data retention period, in violation of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR adequate definition of

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 your comments

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notification of the Commencement Agreement

controller €80,000: €50,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €30,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. The original fine of €80,000 was reduced

of the recognition for internal use is 5 + 5 + 5 years. The normal term is 5 years, which can be extended once by 5 years . Ten years may be too short to

fine, the criteria specified in the same Article 83." 112. Under Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20(III) of the Data Protection Act: "1

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

personal data in the deeds, based on Article 40(2)(c) of the Dutch Civil-law notaries act (Wet op het notarisambt) and Article 18(1)(3) of the Land registry act

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

the violation of the GDPR: violation of article 6.1, violation typified in its article 83.5.a). IV Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR “Security of processing”

same article 83. 40. Article 83 of the GDPR provides: 1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this Article for

criteria for theirgraduation in article 40 of the same standard, the literal wording of which is as follows:“Article 40. Graduation of the amount of the

violation of article 5.1.f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter RGPD), typified in the article 83.5 of the RGPD

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

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

issuer is identified as YOIGO. SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of

sentence 3, § 68 (1) sentence 5 LFGB § 40 paragraph 1a Basic Law Article 5(1), first sentence VIG § 1, § 2, § 3, § 4 para. 4, § 5 para. 1, para. 4 p. 1, § 6

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

establishing the criteria for its graduation in article 40 of the same norm, whose literal tenor is the following: "Article 40. Grading of the amount of sanctions

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

correspond would be for the infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, the sanction that would correspond would be

"For its part, article 40 of the LSSI, in relation to the "Graduation of theamount of sanctions ”, determines the following:"Article 40. Grading of the

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

fine of up to EUR 30,000 , in accordance with Article 39 of the LSSI. Two criteria (established in Article 40 of the LSSI) were applied to graduate the sanction:

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

violation of articles 5.1.f, of the RGPD -as set out in Article 83(5)(a) of the said regulation and 5(1)(f) in relation to Article 32(1)(b) and (c) - specified

Baan Centre. (hereinafter: SPC) a claim for compensation as referred to in Article 49, first and second paragraphs of the Personal Data Protection Act (Wbp)

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)

compensation/amount, pursuant to Article 7:683(4) in conjunction with Article 7:682(6) of the Dutch Civil Code, equal to the gross salary of €3,694.40 per four weeks and

representation does not replace Article 9 (2) (a) and (c) consent of the data subject in accordance with Article 7. Article 7 (1) of the ECHR provides that

the alleged violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and article 32 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 and 83.4 of the GDPR. The initiation agreement

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

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of article 6 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. FOURTH: On January 16, 2023, the aforementioned

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

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

violated Article 22(2) of the Act on Information Society Services and Electronic Commerce and fined the controller €2000, that were reduced by 40% to €1200

comes regulated in article 32 of the GDPR. II Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR establishes the following: "Article 5 Principles relating

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

requirements of Article 9 GDPR. In the DSB held that the processing violated Articles 5, 6 and 9 GDPR: Consent under Articles 6(1)(a), 7 and 9(2)(a) GDPR cannot

of the article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, infringement typified in its article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned regulation. IV. Article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, considers

Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/5set forth in article 25 and section 5 of the fourth additional provision of the Law29/1998,

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

meaning that no violation of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR could be established. Integrity and confidentiality - Article 5(1)(f) GDPR As explained above, the DPA

The 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)

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: €

following way: C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 12/5 - The different user profiles in which authorization is authorized have

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

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

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

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

939/2005,C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/5of July 29, in relation to art. 62 of Law 58/2003, of December 17, me-by entering

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

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

control authority, and according to the provisions of article 47 of the Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on the Protection of Personal Data and guarantee

under the GDPR and needs to establish a valid legal basis to process personal data. Unsolicited political communication is regulated with Article 11 L. 3471/2006

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1(f) of the GDPR, as defined in Article 83.5(a) of the GDPR. FOURTH: Having been notified of the above-mentioned

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

positively to the request of the Complainant in accordance with Article 12(2) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. The HDPA imposed an administrative fine of EUR 20,000 on

forseen in Articles 15 to 22 GDPR. Failure to provide this information constitutes a "serious infraction" per Article 83.5 GDPR. However, the DPA held that

the LPACAP, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On January 23, 2023, DIGI requests a

art. 5 para. (1) lit. f) of the General Regulation on Data Protection. The operator Sanatatea Press Group SRL was sanctioned with a fine of 9,671.40 lei

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

with NIF ***NIF.1, for the alleged violation of Article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT R.R.R. as instructor. and, as

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

question if Google LLC violated Articles 5 et seqq. GDPR in connection with Article 28(3)(a) and Article 29 GDPR. The DSB fully upheld the complaint with

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

data integrity, security and confidentiality under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. For the violation of Article 32, the AEPD issued the law firm with a reprimand

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

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

controller violated Article 5(1)(d) GDPR ("accuracy"), but a more natural conclusion would be to find a violation of Article 32(1)(d) GDPR ("adoption of adequate

lack of valid consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Thus, it imposed VODAFONE a fine of EUR 75,000 under Article 83(5) GDPR, being indecisive whether there

of €10,000.00. claimed, for the violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

intentionality was taken into account (Article 40(a) LSSI). The AEPD fined the controller €2000 for failing to comply with Article 21 LSSI. The Director of the Spanish

RETAIL S.L. for alleged infringement of Article 5.1 f) of the GDPR, in accordance with Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR- Initiate sanctioning procedure against

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

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

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

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

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

referred to as LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1(f) of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Having been notified of the

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.aepd

pre-contractual; (…) " The offense is typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, which considers as such: "5. Violations of the following provisions will be sanctioned

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

measurespre-contractual;(…) "The offense is typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, which considers as such:"5 . Violations of the following provisions will be

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

provisions of article 58.2.i) of the GDPR, for the alleged infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5.b) of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT

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

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72.1 m), under the heading “ Infractionsconsidered very serious ” provides:"one. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation

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

€150,000 on Xfera Móviles S.A. (defendant) for infringing Article 17, 32, 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 21 LSSI. The fine was imposed after investigating two complaints

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

infraction of art. 5.1.d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016, typified in art. 83.5 of the aforementioned

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

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

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

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 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

code of conduct approved in accordance with article 40 or to a certification mechanism approved under article 42 may serve as an element to demonstrate compliance

relation to the requirements prescribed by Article 12.1 of the GDPR (transparency obligation) and by Article 13 of the GDPR (right to information). The Head of

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. as

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

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

AEPD concluded that the defendant could have breached Article 13 GDPR, Article 7 GDPR and Article 22(2) LSSI: there was no identification of the data controller

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

www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/14 particular (…) ” III The RGPD deals in its article 5 with the principles that must govern the treatment

adherence to codes of conduct under Article 40 or to mechanisms certification approved in accordance with Article 42, and k) any other aggravating or mitigating

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

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

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

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

interested party, respectively. III Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) “Principles relating to processing” of the GDPR establishes: "1. The personal data

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

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)

respondent: a) for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1.a) of the GDPR, sanctioned in accordance with the Article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD and, b)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

party was charged with claimed a violation of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR; considering that capturing images of shared

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

provisions of the article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, so they involve the commission of an infraction classified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, which provides the

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

code of conduct approved in accordance with article 40 or to a certification mechanism approved under article 42 may serve as an element to demonstrate compliance

complaint - infringes Article 6(1) GDPR, by unlawfully processing the complainant's personal data, in relation to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, which governs the

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

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

infringements of Article 5.1.c) and Article 6.1 AVG. In particular, the Disputes Chamber found that relevant that: - the infringed Article 5.1.c) AVG contains

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

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

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

filmed by the owner of the location. Principles in Article 5(1)(a) and (c) and Article 6(1)(f) GDPR are therefore violated. In addition there were violations

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

Privacy” to article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/17 Council

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

constitutes sensitive data within the meaning of Article 9 GDPR. The DPA alluded to Article 9(1) GDPR which prohibits the processing of these special categories

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned start-up

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

prescription, Article 72(1)(b) of the LOPDGDD states "Infringements considered very serious": 1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 83(5) of Regulation

alleged 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

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

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

>>) " The violation of article 5.1.d) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 in the following terms: "5. Violations of the following

[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

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

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

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

violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, an action that can be subsumed under the sanctioning type of article 83.5 of the RGPD. IV Article 58 of the RGPD

(Considering 40 GDPR), Article 6.1 of the GDPR is therefore applicable and not RD 1720/2007 used by the defendant. Thus, the aforementioned article 6.1 GDPR establishes

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

with the obligations under Article 6, §2, al. 5 and Article 9 of the Camera Act 1 2. there is a serious indication that article 6, § 2, al. 4 of the aforementioned

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

more personal data than strictly necessary within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR. The FPS Finance therefore does not comply with the data minimization

rating, breaching Article 6(1) GDPR, and required the company to implement a policy for conducting credit ratings per Article 24 GDPR. A person lodged a

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

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

for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. The AEPD considered that the fine was proportional, since the GDPR establishes that fines

Authority. II.5.2. Established infringement of Article 5(1)(a) j° Article 6(1)(f) and Article 12(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 17 (1) GDPR. II.5.2.1. Administrative

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

meaning of Article 5.1.c. AVG). 13. The transcript of the hearing is subsequently transmitted to the parties on 28 June 2023; in accordance with Article 54 of

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

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 58. 1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. 2/5 SIXTH: The aforementioned agreement to commence

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

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, a warning sanction and for a violation of article 32 of the GDPR, typified

for an infractionof article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) and classified as very serious toprescription effects in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD

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

Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/5In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, theThis Resolution will be made

basis of the processing; 4.5.2016 L 119/40 Official Journal of the European Union EN (d) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(f), the legitimate

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

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

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

B02547164, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 GDPR, a fine of FIVE THOUSAND EUROS (€ 5,000.00). SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, the DPA fined the controller €50,000. In its assessment of the fine, the DPA noted three aggravating factors per Article 83(2)

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

data in accordance with Article 5 of the Regulation, including in particular the principle of data minimization, cf. Article 5 (1) of the Regulation. 1

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

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

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

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

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

infringement of article 5.1(b), as defined in Article 83(5)(a) and considered for the purposes of the statute of limitations in Article 72(1)(a), a fine

Articles 6 and 13 GDPR? The AEPD decided to impose, for infringement of Article 6 GDPR, a fine of € 10000 and, for infringement of Article 13 GDPR, a fine of

for consent under the articles 5, 6, 7 and 9” is punishable, in accordance with section 5 of the aforementioned Article 83 of the aforementioned Regulation

Digital Rights (LOPDGDD), for the infringement of Article 5.1 f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD and considered very serious in 72

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

typified in Article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers such as: 'failure to provide access in breach of Article 58(1)'. The same Article states that

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

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

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

processed (data minimization), would that be an infringement of the Article 5.(1)(c) GDPR? The AEPD held, that it is responsibility of the demandant to make

criminal proceedings for the alleged violation of Article 32 of the GDPR, as defined in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. FOURTH:Notified of the abovementioned agreement

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

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

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

to as the LPACAP), on the alleged breach of Article 58 (2) GDPR as laid down in Article 83 (5) of the GDPR. SIXTH:At the time of notification of the said

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

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned start-up

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

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

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

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

Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned a Luxembourg

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

infringements of Article 5(1)(f), Article 24, and Article 32 GDPR, and to the objection of the IT SA on the possible infringement of Article 5(2) GDPR, the EDPB

procedure to the claimed, by thealleged infringement of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPDand considered very serious in 72.1.a)

administrative fine Under Article 58, second paragraph, preamble below i, the AP is read in conjunction with Article 83 of the GDPR, authorized to impose an

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

the presumed infringement of article 5.1 b) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, in relation to Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD. SECOND:

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

coming into force of the GDPR on 25. 5. 2018. Can a controller charge for access to historic account data under Article 15 GDPR? Is GDPR applicable to a case

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

the principles of lawfulness and fairness of Article 5 GDPR and without a legal basis under Article 6 GDPR. A bank (the controller) organized prize games

with NIF A95758389, for the alleged violation of article 5.1 f) of the RGPD,typified in article 83.5 a) of the RGPDSECOND: ORDER IBERDROLA CLIENTES, SAU

Procedure"), LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GPRS. FOURTH: Once the above-mentioned agreement

with NIF A82528548, for a violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of 40,000 euros. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

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

of Article 6(1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the documentation in the file provides evidence that G.L.P. Instalaciones 86, S.L violated Article 6(1)

particular case; " The offense is classified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, which considers as such: "5. Violations of the following provisions will be sanctioned

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned start-up

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR (LCEur 2016, 605) , typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, a penalty of warning, of in accordance with article 77 of

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

principles relating to the processing of personal data under Article 5 GDPR. The ICO referenced Article 5(1)(a) to make the argument that disclosing the name to

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

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FIFTH: Once the aforementioned commencement

the claimed party, for the alleged infraction of the Article 58.2 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 e) of the RGPD. Said agreement was notified through

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

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

(hereinafter, LPA- CAP), for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid

for the allegedviolation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of theArticle 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD

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

to object to the processing of personal data, in accordance with Article 12 and Article 13 of the Law 2472/1997. OASTH however did not follow up on these

the meaning of Article 100 of the WOG. The Disputes Chamber has thus decided, on the basis of Article 58.2.c) GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5° of the WOG, to

defendant. II.3. Right of access (Article 15 GDPR) 43. In accordance with Article 58(2)(c) of the GDPR and Article 95(1)(5) WOG, the Litigation Chamber has

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

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 article 5.1.f) of the GDPR SAW The violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD implies the commission of the violations typified in article 83.5 of the

requirements of Article 6(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR, which cannot be superseded by relying on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR? Is Article 5(1)(c) GDPR (data

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

the processing to be lawful according to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, then one of the legal basis of Article 6 GDPR should apply. It considered that the most

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 58.1 of the GDPR, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Regulation

alleged infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Does the action of the defendant constitute a violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? Considering the evidence

referred to as LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Upon notification of the aforementioned

information under Article 13 GDPR is illegal. Consequently, the APED decided to issue a fine of €1.500 for the violation of Article 13 GDPR. Share your comments

"reputation rating" 5 from the association, similar, for example, to the so-called "business rating" d i c u i a ll'a rt. 8 3 d and l d .lg s. n. 5 0 d e l 2 0

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

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

lawfulness principle in Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR would be contravened by the disclosure of information, Article 6(1) of the GDPR (lawfulness) is to be

the lack of security routines, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) cf. Article 5 GDPR, Article 35 and Article 24(1), respectively. Teachers at two junior high

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

principle, namely the breaches of articles 5-1-c), 5 -1 e), 13, 32 and 35-1 of the GDPR; no breach of Article 6 of the GDPR and of Directive 2002/58 / EC of the

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

GPRD), an offense under Article 83(5)(a) of the GPRD and described as very serious in article 72.1. a) of Organic Law 3/2018 of 5 December, on Protection

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: After the period granted for the formulation

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

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

Procedure"), LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the GRPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Once the above-mentioned agreement

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

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

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FIFTH: Once the aforementioned start-up

obligations arising from Article 5(1)(e) of the GDPR. D. On the breach of the transparency obligation 36. Article 12(1) of the GDPR provides that "the controller

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

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

according to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. As for the lawfulness, the ICO considers that there is a legitimate interest according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However

measures in in accordance with Article 5 (1) (f) and Article 31 (1) and (2) in order to ensure and, in accordance with Article 5 (2), be able to demonstrate

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

available”.   19.  The Data Protection Principles are set out in the GDPR.   Article 5(1) GDPR provides that personal data shall be “processed lawfully, fairly

refused to disclose the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA, by way of section 40(3A) a. The requested information constitutes personal data

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

legitimate interest of the controller under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. In considering the application of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR in the context of a request for information

claimed, by the alleged infringement of article 5.1.d) of the RGPD, article 17 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Once the aforementioned

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

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

for the alleged violation of article 5.1f) of the RGPD in relation to the Article 5 of the LOPDGDD, typified in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. C / Jorge Juan

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and article 32 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD. EIGHTH: Notification of

principles the ICO refers to Article 5 (1) (a). It then elaborates on the applicability of a legal basis according to Article 6 (1) (f). The ICO confirms

rating without a legal basis under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and for not adhering to the accountability principle as per Article 5(2). The DPA also requires that

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

agreements Article 12 (1) of the GDPR 17 IV.5. Legal consequences (72) The Authority finds that the Client has infringed Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR, Article 6 Article

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

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

legitimate interest of the controller under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. In considering the application of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR in the context of a request for information

authorization norm within the meaning of Article 6 Paragraph 1 lit. c GDPR. This also results from Art. 5 Para. 1 lit. a GDPR, according to which personal data

DP principles. As always, it considers the following three-part test (Article 6 GDPR) - i) Legitimate interest ii) Necessity and iii) Balancing tests. The

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

sanctioning procedure, under Article 83(5)(a) of the GDPR, against AAA on 21 December 2022, due to a infringement of Article 6. AAA was the father of the

suspension. " 5 Pursuant to Article 83 (2), (5) and (7) of the General Data Protection Regulation: “[...] administrative fines in accordance with Article 58 (2)

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

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

valid consent under Article 4(11) GDPR and Article 6(1) LOPDGDD (National data protection law aimed at the implementation of the GDPR). In both articles

The DPA fined the municipality €40,478 (NOK 400,000) for breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2), cf. Article 24 and requires them to submit to

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

is typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, which considers as such:C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/11"5 . Violations of

basis for the processing (Article 21(1) GDPR). Finally, the DPA fined the controller €12,000 for a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR due to the lack of a valid

The request was based on Article 46 of the Dutch Data Protection Act (Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens - Wbp), implementing GDPR. The Bank rejected the request

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

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1.b) of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Once the aforementioned initiation

is exempt under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The ICO has gone on to consider if there are conditions defined by an article 6 of GDPR (in this case art.6 (1)(f))

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

legitimate interest of the controller under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. In considering the application of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR in the context of a request for information

found violations of Articles 5(1)(c) and 6 GDPR and Article 29(1) of Law 125(I)/2018. Concerning the violation of Article 29(1) of Law 125(I)/2018, the

alleged infringement of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD and article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) and b) of the GDPR. FIFTH: On 12/17/2021 the

powers of investigation conferred on the supervisory authorities in Article 57 (1) of the GDPR.Thus, on 31/10/18, an information injunction was sent to the entity

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On June 30, 2022, the claimed party presented

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)

right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”) of Article 17 GDPR and Article 19 of Regulation 2018/1725. Under GDPR, such prolonged and unrestricted data retention

the 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

exceeding SEK 5 000 000 or SEK 10 000 000 depending on whether the infringement concerns articles covered by Article 83(4) or 83.5 of the GDPR. Article 83(2) sets

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

meaning of Article 4 No. 7 GDPR. However, the defendant cannot be accused of violating an obligation to provide information under Art. 15, 12 GDPR. Paragraph

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

the complainant, as described by Article 10 GDPR, and not special category of personal data, as described by Article 9 GDPR. The complainant requested information

withdrawal of consent under Article 7(3) GDPR. The Authority also considers the existence of a deletion request under Article 17 GDPR. The AEPD concludes that

2020, EGBGB Art. 40 para. 32; MüKoBGB/Junker, 7th edition 2018 para. 38, EGBGB Art.40 para. 38). For this view The wording of Art. 40 Para. 1 S. 1 EGBGB

Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned a Luxembourg

assessment on the wording of Article 85 GDPR, The Norwegian Constitution § 100, The European Convention of Human Rights Article 10, and the International

DPA found that the Healthcare committee violated Article 5(1)(f), Article 5(2), Article 32(1) and Article 32(2). The DPA investigated the logging practices

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

measures in accordance with Article 5 (1) (f) and Article 31 (1) and (2) for be able to ensure and, in accordance with Article 5 (2), be able to demonstrate

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

accordance with the preliminary work of the Credit Information Act (HE 241/2006, p. 40), the provisions of the Credit Information Act are intended to encourage debtors

of minimum data processing (Article 5.1. c) GDPR). 33. In order to check whether the third condition of Article 6.1 f) GDPR - the so-called "Balancing test"

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

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

measures in accordance with Article 5 (1) (f) and Article 32 (1) and (2) in order to ensure and, in accordance with Article 5 (2), be able to show that the

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

aggravating circumstance according to Article 83(2)(i) or as a separate violation according to Article 83(5)(e) or Article 83(6). Since the situation at hand

request under Article 15 and with the one month deadline under Article 12(3). Was Google Ireland Ltd in breach of its obligations under GDPR Article 15(1) and

connection with Article 5 paragraph 1 point c, Article 9 paragraph 1, Article 58 paragraph 2 point f, point g and point i and with Article 83 paragraph 2

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

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

sense of Article 4(1) GDPR. Moreover, OLG Celle also held that a singular access request can never be excessive for the purposes of Article 12(5) GDPR as the

is only determined by Article 5 et seqq. GDPR. A violation of Article 13 or 14 GDPR can be fined under Article 83(5) GDPR but it does not affect the lawfulness

processing principles of Article 5 GDPR and with a weighing of interests in accordance with Article 6 Paragraph 1 lit. f GDPR is a fundamentally irreversible

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

adequate information under Article 13 GDPR, and for the processing of personal data in a manner contrary to Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. A data subject submitted

(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

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

conferred by article 79(2) of the GDPR. This is the relevant provision for the purposes of para 3.1(20) of CPR Practice Direction 3B. Article 79(2) provides:

provisions of article 9 of the GDPR, which implies the commission of an infringement classified in section 5.a) of the Article 83 of the GDPR. Article 83.5.a) of

it was necessary for the public interest pursuant to Article 9(5) Act 90/2018 (Articles 6(1)(e) GDPR). However, publishing the complainant's ID number and

whether Article 10 GDPR was violated. Interestingly, the original first-tier DPA decision referred to a violation of Article 5, 6, 7 or 9 GDPR. It seems

violation of article 6.1. f) of the RGPD, in relation with article 20.1 c) of the LOPDGDD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the cited GDPR That by writing

processing (Article 18 GDPR), right to data portability (Article 20 GDPR) and right to object (Article 21 GDPR). The right to information under Art. 15 GDPR cannot

3.2.3. To an objection by the BF according to Art 21 GDPR According to Article 21 Paragraph 1 GDPR, every person concerned has the right to object at any

Sociosanitarios, SA for an alleged violation provided for in article 83.5.a, in relation to article 5.1.f, all those of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European

therefore violated Articles 9(1) GDPR out of negligence. The DPA fined the controller €1,600,000 pursuant of Article 83(5)(a) GDPR and considered this a high

protection principles in Article 5 GDPR. This includes notifying the data subjects about processing in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 GDPR. The DPA held that

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

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

processing special categories of data, cf. Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d), Article 24 and Article 35, cf. Article 5. In May 2019, a municipality reported

the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Section 3 of the Finnish Act on the Protection

violation of thearticle 5.1.f), in relation to article 6.1 of the RGPD.The violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5.a)of the RGPD. The

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

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

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

meaning of Article 4 (1) and (2) GDPR, this would be justified under Article 6 (1)(c) and (3). The court also found that the VIG complies with Article 86 GDPR:

Articles 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

Protection Agency to sanction XFERA for infringement of Article 6.1(a) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5(a) of the RGPD, with a fine of 60,000 euros. It was

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

violation of article 6.1. RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a), and article 31, in relation to article 58.1.e), both of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.e) of

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

an infringement of Article 5 (1) a), b) and c) and (2) of the GDPR and Article 24 (1) of the GDPR; and - an infringement of article 8 of the law of 21

infringements of article 6.1 and 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (Regulation General Data Protection, hereinafter RGPD) typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned

no legal basis. This was a breach of Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 6(3) GDPR, Article 9(1) GDPR and Article 9(3) GDPR as well as Swedish health care legislation

provisions of article 9.5 of the RealDecree-Law 5/2018, the acceptance agreement for processing of this is signedclaim.Under the protection of article 11 of Royal

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

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

data subject has exercised their right to object under Article 21 GDPR. In the same way, Article 48(1)(b) of the Spanish General Telecommunications Act

UK DPA first outlined the definition of consent as defined by Article 4(11) of the GDPR. It also outlined the rules under Regulation 22 PECR which address

to the Art. 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. With regards to the lawfulness of the request, one of the legal bases listed in Article 6(1) of the GDPR must apply to

to the Art. 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. With regards to the lawfulness of the request, one of the legal bases listed in Article 6(1) of the GDPR must apply to

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

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