Search results

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

the exceptions to the one stop shop mechanism applies (Article 55(2), Article 56(2), or Article 66). It interesting to note that the Court confirms that

specifically cites Article 56(2) GDPR, the Greek DPA is competent to investigte this complaint pursuant to Article 55 GDPR. Article 56 applies where there

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

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

accordance with Chapter Roman VII.” Article 56 paragraph 1 GDPR reads:Article 56 paragraph one GDPR reads: “Art. 56 GDPR Responsibility of the lead supervisory

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

(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

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

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

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

provided for in Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or, as the case may be, Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, and consent is withdrawn according to Article 7(3) GDPR, data must be

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

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

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)

under Article 78(2) GDPR – unless it is also competent to handle the case under Article 55 or 56 GDPR. Taking into account of the fourth sentence of Recital

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

categories of data established in Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, Article 9(2)(c) GDPR, Article 9(2)(g) GDPR and Article 9(2)(i) GDPR directly correlate with a specific

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

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

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

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

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

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

respect of Article 33. If a controller who is not established in the EU but falls under the scope of Article 3(2) or Article 3(3) of the GDPR experiences

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

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

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

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)’

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

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

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)

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

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

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

years as per Article 45(3) GDPR, and subject to regular reporting, which Article 97(2) GDPR provides for. The third paragraph of Article 97 GDPR, obliges the

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

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

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

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

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

(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)

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

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

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

Regulation. Noting that a broader reading of Article 98 GDPR is supported by the wording of Article 2(3) GDPR, which provides that: 'For the processing of

to in Article 46(2)(d) GDPR, contractual clauses referred to in Article 46(3)(a) GDPR, or binding corporate rules within the meaning of Article 47 GDPR

important to note that Article 13(1)(f) GDPR, Article 14(1)(f) GDPR, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR and Article 15(2) GDPR, make specific reference to transfers of personal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conduct under Article 83 GDPR should be excluded from penalties issued under Article 84 GDPR is debated. Whilst the wording of the GDPR is simply unclear

derogation from Article 64(3) and Article 65(2), an urgent opinion or an urgent binding decision referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall be adopted

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

situation, Article 95 GDPR will not be relevant, and the GDPR applies as normal. Notably, Recital 173 GDPR, which relates to Article 95 GDPR, omits reference

Datenschutzrecht, Article 73 GDPR, margin number 3 (C.H. Beck 2019, 1st edition). Nguyen, in Gola, DS-GVO, Article 73 GDPR, margin number 2 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd edition);

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

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

decisions pursuant to Article 65 GDPR (Article 70(1)(t) GDPR). Article 68 GDPR is the first of nine Articles (Articles 68-76 GDPR) governing the EDPB set

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 38 GDPR, p. 707 (Oxford University Press 2020). Bergt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 38 GDPR, margin number

with the GDPR (Article 31 GDPR). Direct liability of the representative is limited to the obligations set out in Article 30 and Article 58(1)(a) GDPR. Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clear from the wording of Article 41(1) GDPR. Article 41(1) GDPR does not define accreditation. Nonetheless, Article 41(2) GDPR provides a criterion against

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

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

processing (Article 36(3)(c) GDPR); the contact details of the Data Protection Officer (DPO) (Article 36(3)(d) GDPR); a copy of the DPIA (Article 36(3)(e)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

case to the Irish DPA (DPC) under article 56 GDPR, and in accordance with the procedure outlined in Article 60 GDPR. Following the circulation of the DPC’s

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.

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

that the Medical List does today, cf. GDPR Article 4, No. 11, Article 6 No. 1 letter a, Article 7 and Article 9 No. 2 letter a If current practice is invalid

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

"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

addition to the violation of Article 32 GDPR, the Chamber found that the financial institution had violated: Article 25 GDPR on data protection by design

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

in Article 12(5) GDPR, Article 15(4) GDPR or Article 16 of the Norwegian Personal Data Act were applicable. The DPA ordered the controller (Article 58(2)(d)

intervention Article 58 (2) (i) and Article 83 (2) state that the IMY has the power to impose administrative penalty fees in accordance with Article 83. the

supervisory authority in the case under Article 56 GDPR. The DPC started a cooperation procedure under Article 60 GDPR and opened an investigation. In its

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

authority. Under Article 60 GDPR, the following DPAs were identified as “concerned supervisory authorities” under Article 4(22) GDPR: the Netherlands,

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

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

of Enna"; - the processing would also find its legal basis in Article 9(2)(g) and Article 2(6)(u) of the Code: 'tasks of the national health service and

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

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

regulated in Article 9, and this provision essentially coincides with Article 85 of the Privacy Regulation. Article 9 of the Directive (sections 55 and 56): "In

violation of Article 15 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, as well as for the alleged infringement of Article 17 of the GDPR, typified in

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

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

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

The Privacy Board's assessment It follows from section 2 of the Personal Data Act and Article 2 (2) of the Privacy Ordinance that the Act and the regulation

RESOLUTION Pursuant to the clause 56 (1), (2) subsection 8, 58 subsection 1 of the Personal Data Protection Act and Article 58(1)(a) of the General Data Protection

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

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

did not react either. GDPR applicable? (Article 3(2) GDPR) The DPA held that the GDPR was applicable pursuant of Article 3(2) GDPR. Because the controller

to as ‘GDPR’), which replaced Directive 95/56, has been applicable since 25 May 2018. In accordance with the provisions of Article 15 (1) GDPR, the data

territory of the Member State to which it belongs . Article 56(1) of the EPMR provides: Without prejudice to Article 55, the supervisory authority of the principal

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

17, 32 para 1, 56 para 2, 57 para 1 of the Administrative Criminal Act 1991 - VStG, Federal Law Gazette No 52/1991 as amended; Article 82 para 6 of Regulation

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

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

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

pre-existing form of Article 11 of Law 3471/2006). However, with the provisions of article 16 par. 1 and 2 of law 3917/2011, par. 1 and 2 of article 11 of law 3471/2006

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

specified in Article 83 of the GDPR. 92. 92. Firstly, the restricted formation emphasises that, in this case, the criterion provided for in Article 83(2)(a) of

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

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

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

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

Cyprus, under Article 60 GDPR, the complaint was transmitted to the Cypriot DPA as the lead supervisory authority in line with Article 56 GDPR. The Cypriot

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

case to the Irish DPA (DPC) under article 56 GDPR, and in accordance with the procedure outlined in Article 60 GDPR. In response to the complaint Meta

under section 2, second paragraph, letter b, meaning that the DPA did not have any authority on the process, pursuant to Article 55 GDPR and section 20

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

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

case to the Irish DPA (DPC) under Article 56 GDPR, and in accordance with the procedure outlined in Article 60 GDPR. Responding to the Complainant’s assertions

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

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

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

breach of Article 28 paragraphs 3 and 4 of the GDPR is clear. 2. On the breach of the obligation to ensure data security 49. According to Article 32 of the

2000 and the Personal Data Regulations 2000 applied. Regulations §§ 2-6, 2-11, 2-13 and 2-14 regulated such matters as the case concerns. The relevant conditions

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

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

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

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

---------- Article 1: The intervention of the PDU - What to choose is allowed. Article 2: The request of the company Google LLC is rejected. Article 3: This

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

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

conduct a DPIA cf. Article 35 - clearly inform students cf. Article 12 that a) it's voluntary to participate in the survey cf. Article 13(2)(f), and b) that

DPA held that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to

(referred to in Article 9 of the GDPR) or of "personal data relating to criminal convictions and offenses" (referred to in Article 10 of the GDPR)" ( note cit

purpose under §§ 2(8) and 3(1) of the Cookie Law , the condition for voluntary and specific consent (as also described in Article 4(11) GDPR) was not met.

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:

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

12(2), 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

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

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

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

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

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

of Article 12(1) GDPR. The AP outlined that, in the event of an infringement of Article 12(1) of the GDPR, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(5)

basis in line with Article 13(1)(d) GDPR. The DPA stated that it would impose a fine on the controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, if latter does

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

by the GDPR. That there was a violation of Article 288(2) TFUE, since applying the national consumer law would impair the application of the GDPR and partially

by the GDPR. That there was a violation of Article 288(2) TFUE, since applying the national consumer law would impair the application of the GDPR and partially

lawfulness (section 2.2 below) and purpose (section 2.3 below). Finally, it will address the issue of the sanction (section 2.4 below) 2.1 Applicable Law

be personal data per Article 4 GDPR. The CNIL then assessed whether the transfers of the data to the US comply with Article 44 GDPR. It considered whether

infringements of Article 12, 13 and 14 of the GDPR only. A limited assessment which, according to Hungarian and Italian DPAs, was faulty. Article 13(2)(e) GDPR provides

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

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

The Swedish DPA held that a controller has violated article 12(3) GDPR, because, although they complied with an erasure request, they did not subsequently

intervention Article 58 (2) (i) and Article 83 (2) state that the IMY has the power to impose administrative penalty fees in accordance with Article 83. the

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the GDPR; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In

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

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

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

Articles 56 and 60 of the GDPR does not apply established by the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 para. 1, 2 para. 1

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

(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

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the GDPR; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In

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

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 when

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

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

Moreover, following an infringement of Article 12(3) GDPR, as explained above, under the provisions of Article 83 of the GDPR, I take into account the following

data 9 2.1.1 Factual findings 9 2.1.2Legal assessment 9 2.2 Controller and processor(s) 10 2.2.1 Factual findings 10 2.2.2Legal assessment 12 2.3Security

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

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

with Article 12 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 6 and Article 5 (2). 1 (c). The Data Inspectorate has hereby emphasized that Article 12 (2) of the

of: 1) Article 12(2) GDPR, by not enabling the data subject to exercise their right to rectification stated in Article 16 GDPR. Article 12(2) GDPR thus includes

cf. Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i, cf. Article 83. Both infringements of Article 6 and Article 13 may be sanctioned with a fee, cf. Article 85, paragraph

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

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

the Austrian DPA pursuant to Article 55(1) GDPR. However, the DPA further considered the exception of Article 55(2) GDPR which states that local DPA's

made pursuant of Article 17 GDPR. However, this is different when Article 17(3) GDPR applies, which describes that Article 17(1) and 17(2) do not apply when

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

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

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

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

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

provided for in Article 2, h) of Directive 95/46/EC. In particular, under these new requirements, article 4, paragraph 11 of the GDPR requires that the

accordance with Article 60 of the AVG. No objections to this were submitted. 2. Legal Framework 2.1 Scope of the AVG Pursuant to Article 2(1) of the AVG

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

lead authority under Article 56, paragraph one, GDPR, thereby initiating a cooperation procedure under Article 60, GDPR. I.2.Roman one.2. On January 11, 2023

source of the data. The DPA issued a reprimand pursuant of Article 58(2)(b) GDPR and Article 20.II of the French Data Protection Act with regard to the

is thus very unclear whether this decision falls under Article 60(7) GDPR or Article 60(8) GDPR. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below

Member State " The RGPD provides, in its article 56.1, for cases of cross-border processing, provided for in its article 4.23), in relation to the competence

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

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

and consequent transfer of personal data to the US in violation of Article 44 GDPR, as they did not have sufficient supplementary measures in place. Following

comply with Article 5(2) GDPR. The DPA determined that the controller violated Article 15 GDPR. The DPA stated that Article 15(1)(c) GDPR must be interpreted

follows: Article 5(1)(c) , Article 5(1)(e) and Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR The DPC found that Airbnb did not validly rely on Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR as the

referred the case to the Irish DPA under article 56 GDPR, and in accordance with the procedure outlined in Article 60 GDPR. Responding to the first issue (lawfulness

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

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

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

this Directive. As such, the one-stop shop mechanism provided for in Article 56 GDPR does not apply in the present case. CNIL - SAN-2020-012 Share blogs

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

for in Article 56 GDPR is excluded in the context of cross-border processing that falls within the scope of both the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR, and

es 2/7 FOUNDATIONS OF LAW FIRST: The Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in

mechanism of Article 56 GDPR. The luxembourg DPA started an investigation regarding Amazon's use of cookies and its compliance with the GDPR and the ePrivacy

and 13(2)(a) GDPR. In light of all of the above, the Italian DPA held that, while the DPC is the lead supervisory authority under Article 56(1) GDPR, it is

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the GDPR; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In

Para. 1 lit. f GDPR, Art. 5 Para. 1 lit. a GDPR and Art compatible. I.16. After being asked to comment (VWA ./56, see point II.2), BF2 took the lead their

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

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

share their location, in violation of Article 5 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 7 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, and Article 25 GDPR. The DPA, however, claimed that the

acted in breach of Article 12(2) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that IMY has the

which led to a (sensitive) data breach, in violation of Article 32(1) and Article 32(2) GDPR In Oktober 2019, a malicious third party gained unauthorized

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

under Article 15 GDPR and demanded free access to the historic bank transaction data. The bank argued that this would be a misuse of Article 15 GDPR and

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

[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

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

out in Article 14(5)(a) and Article 14(5)(c) GDPR. The DPA rejected the controller's views as it argued that the exceptions in Article 14(5) GDPR should

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

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

interpretation of Article 3 (2) of Directive 95/46 / EC and the case law of the European Court of Justice on the succession in Article 2 (2) lit. a) GDPR should be

case to the Irish DPA (DPC) under article 56 GDPR, and in accordance with the procedure outlined in Article 60 GDPR. Responding to the Complainant’s assertions

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

established in its article 12.5. (…)” VII Penalty for violation of article 12 of the GDPR Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83 of the GDPR, the aforementioned

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

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

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

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

6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 2 2/8THIRD: On 06/08/2020, in accordance with article 65 of the LOPDGDD, theDirector of the Spanish Data

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

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

this data breach a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR? The AEPD concluded that there was no violation of Article 32(1) GDPR, because the company had implemented

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

provided for in Article 15 GDPR and Article 13 LOPDGDD was exercised. Secondly, the DPA noted that a valid legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR is required

the Personal Data Act and the Privacy Ordinance, cf. section 2 and Article 2 of the Ordinance 2. The Personal Data Act and the Privacy Ordinance are coming

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

criteria stated in Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in accordance with Article 83(2) GDPR and Article 76 LOPDGDD the following

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

in Article 23 GDPR. Restrictions on the right to information under Art. 15 GDPR result in particular from the express provision in Art. 15 (4) GDPR that

defendant 2. Also here is there 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)

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

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

(EU) 2016/679, p. 41. 2.2.2 Obligations relating to consent ('opt-in') (Articles 5, 6(1)(a) and 4(11) in conjunction with Article 7 of the Data Protection

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

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

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

of article 15 of the GDPR. V Classification of the infringement of article 15 of the GDPR The aforementioned infringement of article 15 of the GDPR supposes

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

is maintained under Article 6.1 b) to f) of the GDPR and therefore in Article 6.1.c) invoked in the species. Article 6.1 of the GDPR in fact reproduces

highly sensitive personal data exposed, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2), cf. Article 24. An employee in a municipal health care center

security under Article 2(2)(a) GDPR. The GDPR will not apply if the activity of the controller falls outside the scope of Union Law under Article 2(2)(a). 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

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

private doctor for violating Article 32 GDPR by making his patients' health data freely accessible on the web, and Article 33 GDPR by not notifying the DPA

minimization principle (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR), since the processing was based on a legal obligation pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. Share your comments

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

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

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

with the provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the RGPD; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. C/ Jorge Juan

portability, thereby violating Article 13(2)(b) GDPR. In light of the above, in accordance with Article 58(2)(i) GDPR and Article 83 GPDR, the AP considered

mechanism envisaged by Article 60 GDPR. The Dutch DPA, considered itself leading supervisory authority pursuant to Article 56 GDPR, and asked the controller

the one-stop shop procedure under Art. 56 in conjunction with Art. 60 GDPR). Pursuant to Article 12(1) of the GDPR, the controller shall take appropriate

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

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 of 18.12

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

with Article 5 (1) (c) of the General Data Protection Regulation; and (3) whether the controller should be ordered in accordance with Article 58 (2) (c)

powers 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

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

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

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

fairness principle, violating Article 5(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and Article 6 in conjunction with Article 8 Personal Data Protection

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

the infringement. In relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its article Article 76, “Sanctions and corrective measures”, establishes

pursuant to Article 58(2) GDPR. Moreover, it ordered the controller to bring its processing operations into compliance pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR. On sharing

subject with the information as required under Article 15(1) from letter (a) to (h) GDPR and Article 15(2) GDPR, and to provide the data subject with a copy

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

conjunction with Article 62 (1) 4 DSG and for the period prior to 25 May 2018 against Article 52 Paragraph 2 no. 7 in conjunction with § 50b par. 2 DSG 2000.

also be subject to the provisions of Article 6.1(e) DSGVO in conjunction with Article 6.1(b) DSGVO. Article 2, 28.2 no. 2 BayDSG without the consent of the

responsible person RESOLUTION: § 56 subsection 1, subsection 2 point 8, § 56 subsection 3 points 3 and 4, § 58 (1), § 10 and Article 58 (1) of the General Regulation

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

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

district court correctly recognized - only § 4 paragraph 2 sentence 2 in conjunction with § 4 paragraph 2 sentence 1 of the subcontractor contract of 21.11./05

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

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

meaning of section 24(2) of the DPA, in accordance with the order to remedy deficiencies of 21 November 2018. Pursuant to Art 2(1), the GDPR is only materially

an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with article 77.2 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND:

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

made; 2. the time during a procedure according to Articles 56, 60 and 63 GDPR."2. the time during a procedure according to Articles 56, 60 and 63 GDPR.” §

accordance with Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) GG, Article 101 in conjunction with Article 100 sentence 1 BV (cf. LT-Drs. 17 /19626 p. 56 and 17/21815)

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 €

broad definitions of processing and personal data laid down by Article 4(1) and (2) GDPR. The DPA then quotes ECJ, 11 December 2014, Ryneš, case C-212/13

Articles 56 and 60 of the GDPR does not apply the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 para. 1, 2 para. 1 and 3 para. 2 GDPR

the basis of article 92, 3° of the WOG. 14. The inspection report shall identify potential breaches of Article 5(1). 2 of the AVG, Article 6 of the AVG

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

only with regard to the applications under 2 a), 2 b) and 2 c) and partially with regard to the application under 2 d), so that the remainder of the regional

paragraph 5 DSG §24 paragraph 8 GDPR Art51 Para GDPR Art57 Para.1 litf GDPR Art57 Para GDPR Art77 Para VwGVG §28 paragraph 2 B-VG Art. 133 today B-VG Art

subsequent violations of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and of the principle of accountability as foreseen in Article 5(2) GDPR read in conjunction

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

GLOVOAPP, of Article 12 GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 17 GDPR. VI Sanction of the infringement of Article 12 GDPR The infringement of Article 12 of the

data in breach of Article 32(1) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has

function is given in Article 24(4) Gemeindeordnung (GO), a national law that specifies Article 6(1)(e) GDPR in accordance with Article 6(2) GDPR for processing

erred by not respecting the regime provided for in article 77 of the Law 2/2018 especially in its section 2 when it says: "When the managers or managers listed

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

therefore orders a discontinuation of proceedings pursuant to Article 100, §1, 2° WOG. Article 5.2 and 31 AVG 37. The report of the Inspectorate shows several

the regime provided for in the GDPR. 56. In reality, as is clear from the body of paragraph 2 of article 83 of the GDPR, the Union legislator confers on

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

in accordance to Article 4(23) GDPR. According to the AEPD, there are other concerned DPAs in this case, as defined in Article 4(22) GDPR: Spain, Belgium

of the obligation to inform individuals pursuant to Article 13 of the GDPR 38. Article 13 of the GDPR requires the data controller to provide, at the time

patient data cf. Article 32 GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and inadequate internal controls cf. Article 24 GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. Østfold Hospital

accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) UK GDPR because it failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(1)(a) and (c) UK GDPR principles of lawfulness

Privacy Ordinance Article 83 no. 2 letters a to k. to highlight factors that are to be given special weight. With reference to Article 83 no. 2 letter a «The

which the person responsible is subject. In contrast to Article 6 (1) (b) GDPR, Article 6 (1) (c) GDPR with “legal obligation” does not mean a contractual

meaning of Article 6 Paragraph 3 in conjunction with Paragraph 1 Letter c) or Letter e) GDPR, whereby according to Article 85 Paragraph 1, 2 GDPR the protection

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)

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

of Article 12 GDPR. On the other hand, the company had undermined individuals rights of access (Article 15 GDPR) and right to be forgotten (Article 17

recalled that according to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, personal data processing must have a valid legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR. As a general rule, the processing

accordance with Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1. 3.2. Article 25 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 25 (1) of the

and the sanction in No. 3.2 of the Terms of Use which is linked to it do not violate § 307 (1) sentence 2 or (2) BGB. Clause 3.2 of the Terms of Use links

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

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

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

provisions of the GDPR under national law implementing Article 85 GDPR. Processing can be based on legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. In 2019, the

is based on Article 9(2)(i) of the GDPR as mentioned above. 34. However, certain data referred to in the PIA are not mentioned in Article 2 of the draft

within one month of the access request, in accordance with Article 15 GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR. By contrast, the insurance company argued that the right

breach of Article 8 ECHR, as such interference in an individual's right to privacy is consistent with the requirements of Article 8 para. 2. The plaintiff

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.

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

procedure under Article 60 GDPR, the Irish DPC reprimanded Microsoft Operations Ireland Limited for violations of Article 12(4) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR. A data

(pursuant to Article 95(1)(4) LCA and Article 58(2)(a) GDPR) for the controller because it seemed to fail to comply with Articles 6 and 24 GDPR. The DPA warned

Code (BGB) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. In their opinion, the disclosure requirement violates Article 6 GDPR. The Higher Regional Court of

from the organization's payment system, the claim was paid on December 2, 2020 at 01:56. Information on paid claims on loans at ÍL-fund is updated daily at

Articles 21(3), 12(3) and 6(1) GDPR. If a data subject objects to direct marketing under Article 21(2) GDPR, Article 21(3) GDPR provides that personal data

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

analyzes the criteria set 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

content: [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted] [article quoted]

fundamental principles of the GDPR, notably Article 5(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The DPA found violations of various provisions of the GDPR. It held that the controller

to VwGH May 27, 2015, Ra 2015/19/0075). 3.2.2. In the matter: 3.2.2.1. Legal situation: 3.2.2.1.1. Art. 4 GDPR reads in part: - 10 - “Definitions For the

of personal data according to Article 4(1) and Article 4(2) and that the employer was the controller according to Article 4(7), regardless of the employee

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

mechanism set out in Article 60 GDPR, in cooperation with the concerned supervisory authorities. 2. Decision Pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR, we issue a reprimand

controller's principal place of business was in France, in accordance with Article 56 GDPR, the French DPA informed other authorities of its competence as lead

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

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

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

finding likely violations of Article 5(1)(c), 8, 9, 13 and 35 GDPR. The AEPD found a likely violation of Article 35 GDPR. Article 35 GPDR requires that a data

Violation of article 35 of the GDPR................................................ ...................36 8.2. Violation of article 9 of the GDPR.........

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

personal data in violation of Article 6(1) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) IMY has the authority to

fairness (article 5.1. a) and the information obligations of Article 13.2 (a) and (e) of the GDPR). 54. Under Articles 5.2 and 24 of the GDPR, the controller

basis as per Article 6(3) GDPR to process the transaction personal data ("bongdata" in Norwegian) as intended, and based on Article 58(2)(f) GDPR imposed a

provisions of Article 3o , Article 4(2) and Article 6(1)(b), all of the GDPR Implementing Law. 57. Under the terms of Article 55(1) of the GDPR, supervisory

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

legislation (30) Based on Article 2 (1) of the GDPR, the GDPR must be applied to the data processing in this case. (31) Recital (47) GDPR: The data controller

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

2000 and the Personal Data Regulations of 2000. The regulations §§ 2-6, 2-11, 2-13 and 2-14 regulated such matters as the case deals with. The relevant conditions

graduation criteria established in section 2 of said article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 may also

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

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

orrequest-related processing activities. ». 2.5. Article 32 - Processing security:2.5.1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure, which

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

analyse the criteria set out in Article 83.2 of the GDPR. 61. As regards the nature and seriousness of the breach (Article 83(2)(a) of the RGPD), it points

pursuant to Article 22 GDPR, but only 'light profiling' under Article 4(4) GDPR. Therefore, the controller claimed that Article 15(1)(h) GDPR did not apply

follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has the power to impose administrative fines in accordance with Article 83. Depending

provisions: (a) Articles 55 (1), 56 (2), 57 (1) (a) and 58 (2) (d) of General Regulation (EU) 2016/679; and (b) of article 19 (5) of Law 125 (I) / 2018, the

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

therefore of the opinion that no breach of Article 5.2 of the GDPR, Article 24.1 of the GDPR and Article 33 of the GDPR can be established. - As regards the

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

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

mechanism (see Article 56 GDPR). During the appeal procedure, however, the AEPD claimed that only Article 22 LSSI (which also stems from Article 5(3) ePrivacy

decision. 2) The right to information according to art. 15 DSGVO is a dispute not related to property law in the sense of § 23 (3) sentence 2 2nd Hs. RVG

requirements of sentences 1 and 2 are met, Section 2 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 and Paragraph 2, Section 4 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 No. 2 and Section 12 do not apply;

12 and 13 of the GDPR constitute breaches of key principles of the GDPR likely to be subject to, under Article 83 of the GDPR. GDPR, an administrative

a claim under Article 126n or Article 126na, or Article 126u or Article 126ua, of the Code of Criminal Procedure or an order under Article 55 of the intelligence

data subject argued that Article 5,13 and 14 LED (the roughly equivalent GDPR articles would be Article 5(1)(e), 13 and 15 GDPR) do not permit the police

accordance with Article 4(1) GDPR. Personal data may only be processed if there is a valid legal basis referred to in Article 6(1) GDPR. As a general rule

In an Article 60 GDPR decision, the Estonian DPA reprimanded a controller for a violation of Article 17 GDPR. The controller did not erase all personal

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

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

reply to an access request is a sufficient corrective measure under Article 58(2) GDPR. However, if a data subject does not get a reply from the controller

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

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

compliance of the provision in Article 25h, paragraph 2 of the LPPD with Article 10 ECHR, Article 19 of the UDHR and Article 19 of the ICCPR . Considers,

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

in violation of Article 12(3) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has

1 and paragraph 2 Article 8 and. Article 9 Act no. 90/2018, cf. point a, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 Article 5 and paragraph 1 Article 6 of regulation

personal data in that assessment pursuant to Article 15(1) GDPR. However, Article 23(1)(i) GDPR and Article 41 UAVG provide the possibility of a restriction

Decision Source: standards: Article 17(1) TEU 2016/679, Article 17(1)(a) TEU 2016/679, Article 17(1)(d) TEU 2016/679, Article 16 S 1 TEU 2016/679, § 4(1)

relief does not result from § 1004 Section 1 Clause 2, § 823 Section 1 BGB, Article 1 Section 1, Article 2 Section 1 GG because of a violation of the plaintiff's

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

processing according to Article 4(2) GDPR In its decision, the court considered only the list of examples laid down in Article 4(2) GDPR, although the list

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

pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) of the GDPR. condemns the Applicant for violating Article 5 (1) (a) of the GDPR; (b) and (c), Article 6 and Article 9. (50)

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

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

Pursuant to Article 2 (2), the General Data Protection Regulation shall apply with the additions indicated therein. Pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the General

there was a breach of Article 14 GDPR. Finally, regarding the security of processing, the CNIL indicated that under Article 32 GDPR, the controller must

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

constituted a violation of Article 15(1) GDPR. Issue 2: Whether Airbnb’s handling of the Complainant’s access request was compliant with the GDPR insofar as the information

person under Article 23 GDPR. The processor sent a reply but did not comply with the requests of the DPA. The data subject now submits an Art 15 GDPR access

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

Paragraph 2 TFEU and is therefore in accordance with Article 2 Paragraph 2 lit a GDPR is excluded from the material scope of application of the GDPR (VwGH December

period allotted to it to do so (Article 15.1 combined with Article 12.3. of GDPR as well as Article 12.2. of the GDPR (obligation to facilitate the exercise

violation of Article 5(2) GPDR since the controller failed to demonstrate compliance with Article 5(1) GDPR and a violation of Article 44 GDPR since the controller

applies according to § 1 paragraph 1 sentence 2 im Within the material scope of the GDPR (Art. 2 Para. 1, Para. 2 lit. c). requirement for the The applicability

Consequently, the DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(c) and (e), Article 25(2), Article 32(1)(d) and Article 32(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

processing (Article 4, opening paragraph 7, GDPR). and that the AP is the competent supervisory authority (Article 56, first paragraph, GDPR). 5.2 Obligation

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)

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

responsibility – article 5.2. of the GDPR) and to implement all the measures necessary for this purpose (Article 24 of the GDPR). 26. Pursuant to Article 5.1.a)

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

criteria established in the section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, also

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

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)

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

requirements of Article 28(3) GDPR. The processor did not dispute this violation. However, it claimed that it was not solely responsible as Article 28(3) GDPR imposes

violation of Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR due to a failure to respond to an access request that was submitted around a month after the GDPR became

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

considered that the AP interpreted Article 55(2) GDPR too narrowly. Booking.com considered that Article 55(2) GDPR did not apply to all private sector

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

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

from the scope of Article 16 GDPR, in my opinion, already follows from the word "inaccurate" in the first sentence of Article 16 GDPR and does not need

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

second paragraph, which has its basis in Article 85(2) of the data protection regulation, it appears that i.a. Article 10 of the Data Protection Regulation

Art. 3 para. 1 BGB § 307 para. 1, para. 2, para. 3 TMG § 3 para. 2 p. 1, § 13 As. 4 p. 1 GDPR Art. 99 para. 2 Guiding principles: (1) The operator of a

pronounce on the applicability of the GDPR in the context of a claim ? 2.2. Article 78 (1) and (2) of the GDPR, and/or Article 47 of the Bill of Rights fundamental

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

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

insofar as there is any processing under Article 4 No. 2 GDPR - is in any case permissible under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The parties are lawyers; they are engaged

data subject. For violating Article 6 GDPR, the DPA fined the controller €4,000 and ordered, in accordance with Article 58(2) GDPR, the removal of the device

in accordance with article 37 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and article 34 of this organic law. " SAW On the other hand, article 83.7 of the RGPD, which

processing requirement of the Section 2D of the Data Protection Act 1988. 2. Based on the Court’s analysis of Article 29 of the Data Protection Directive

the infringement - Article 83(2)(b) - and the fact that the infringement involved the “basic identifiers” of the claimant - Article 83(2)(g) - to be aggravating

Norwegian Health Records Act (pasientjournalloven) and Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR (cf. Article 5 GDPR). The DPA fined Moss municipality NOK 500,000 (€47

Articles 56 and 60 of the GDPR does not apply " established by the GDPR and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of articles 55 par. 1, 2 par. 1

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

satisfying the exercise of his right to object under Article 21(1) GDPR. Therefore, in a letter dated 2 December 2021, the CNIL informed the data subject

information listed in article 13.1 and 13.2. of the GDPR unless and insofar as the data subject has already knowledge (Article 13.4. of the GDPR). This information

GG Art. 1 Paragraph 1; Article 2 paragraph 1 GDPR Art. 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Letter e; Article 18 paragraph 1 letter d; Article 21 paragraph 1 Tags: Toleration

the GDPR pursuant to Article 2(2)(d). Article 79 GDPR does not explicitly limit judicial remedies to the rights enshrined in Chapter III of the GDPR. Following

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

employees. The DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Following a visit to the premises of two public bodies (the

data under Article 4(1) GDPR. Moreover the court found that the controller can refuse to act on the request according to Article 12(5)(b) GDPR, because the

accordance with article 15 AVG (section 2.1) - data processing officer (section 2.2) - cookie policy (section 2.3) - health data processing (section 2.4) - camera

Paragraph 4 GDPR Art4 Z1 GDPR Art5 Paragraph 1 litc GDPR Art51 Paragraph 1 GDPR Art57 Paragraph 1 litf GDPR Art6 Paragraph 1 litf GDPR Art77 GDPR Art9 B-VG

of equality pursuant to Article 7 B-VG and Article 2 StGG, the right to a trial before the lawful judge pursuant to Article 83(2) B-VG, the right to protection

third parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relationwith article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD)SAWIn accordance with articles 58.2 and 83.2 of the RGPD, previously

alleged violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of article 83.5.b) of the aforementioned GDPR and considered for

names did not require the consent of the users pursuant to Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 7 GDPR, therefore there was no violation of these provisions. If

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

contemplated in article 83.2 of the GDPR and 76.2 LOPDGDD, with respect to the offense committed by violating the provisions of the Article 37.1 GDPR, allows a

15Inspection Report, page 18. 16Cfr. art. 107 WOG. 17See in particular Article 83(2)(e) of the GDPR in the context of imposing administrative fines when identify

(2) (f) and Article 14 (2) (g), Article 14 (1) andArticle 15 (1) (h) and Article 21 (1)infringement of Article 18 (1) (a) and (d).order the restriction

(“the GDPR”): regulation 8(2) of the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Article 4(11)

under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, Article 6(3) GDPR, (and the Norwegian Personal Data Act § 8). The Norwegian Privacy Appeals Board noted that under Article 5(1)(b)

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

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

the controller breached Article 12(6) GDPR. Secondly, regarding the sending of the documents by mail, under Article 12(2) GDPR, the use of ordinary mail

breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d), cf. Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. For this, the DPA fined the Parliament about €196,400 (NOK 2 million).

the provision of information can be absolute by Section 2(2)(a) FOIA or qualified by section 2(2)(b) FOIA.  Where an exemption is qualified it is subject

material scope of Article 2 no. 1 GDPR fundamentally requires that "personal data" be processed. The material scope of Article 2, number one, GDPR fundamentally

sedeagpd.gob.es, 8/10 In relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, “Sanctions and corrective measures”, establishes