Search results

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

with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to bring its processing operations into compliance with the provisions of Article 9 GDPR. The

recommendations that are included in the confidential report according to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR and inform the HDPA accordingly. Share your comments here! Share

affinity" on the power of redress under Article 58(2)(d) of the DPA. In fact, it should have relied on Article 58(2)(f) of the DSGVO. In principle, this must

Moreover, the information provided as per Article 13 GDPR were not compliant with the requirements of Article 12 GDPR in light of the fact that TikTok services

Articles 5, 6 par. 1 point (e) and 9 par. 2 (g) GDPR 2016/679 and c) calls, pursuant to article 58 par.2 verse. d GDPR 2016/679, 401 General Military Hospital

out and the resolutions issued under this article. (…)” SAW In accordance with the provisions of article 58.2 d) of the RGPD, each authority of control may

controller in accordance with Article 58 (2) (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and an order in accordance with Article 58 (2) (d) of the General Data

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

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

violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the

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

commercial messages. Consequently, pursuant to its powers under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to take technical and organizational

the GDPR within 1 month starting from the receipt of this decision; c)ordered the company comply with the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR, as

confidentiality as laid down in Article 5(1)(d) and (f) GDPR read in conjunction with the principle of accountability according to Article 5(2) GDPR. The ANSPDCP imposed

game company to bring its processing operations into compliance with Article 12(2) GDPR as it found they should implement additional modalities to facilitate

unlawful. As per Article 58(2) d, the Finnish DPA ordered the housing cooperative to bring the personal data processing activities in line with GDPR. The decision

corrective powers under Article 58(2) GDPR, namely 58(2)(d) and (g) GDPR, may be exercised by the DPA on its own motion. Article 58(2)(c) GDPR, on the other hand

imposed two corrective measures on the controller according to Article 58(2)(c) and (d) GDPR and the fine of 14,420.4 lei, the equivalent of the amount of

took place. Therefore, as per Article 58 (2) (b), DPA issued a reprimand to the controller as per and, as per Article 58 (2) (d), ordered the controller to

according to Article 58(2)(d). Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is a machine translation of the Romanian original. Please refer to the

Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) fined leasing company €15,000 for violation of Article 32(1) and (2) GDPR after investigating a data breach reported by the company, where

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

subjects had not suffered any financial harm. Furthermore, as per Article 58(2)(c) and (d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to comply with the data subjects’

reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also ordered the controller to erase the

processing operations in line with the provisions of the GDPR in accordance with Article 58 (2) (d). Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below

CPDP issued NRA an order under Article 58(2)(d) supra Article 57(1)(a) and Article 83(2)(a), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the GDPR for undertaking suitable technical

considered appropriate in accordance with Article 31(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to identify

reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also ordered the controller to bring its

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

infringements of Article 5(1)(c), Article 5(1)(e) and Article 6(1)(f) the DPC issued a reprimand to Airbnb pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR. In addition

violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 25(2) GDPR and Section 29(4) of the Finnish Data Protection Act. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(d)

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

by the above Registry, (1) and (2) and Article 13.II.The Authority instructs the Obliged Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (d) of the General Data Protection

notified in accordance with the data protection regulation, article 58, subsection 2, letter d. Failure to comply with an order can - unless a higher penalty

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

RESOLUTION Article 56 (1) and (2) point 8, § 58 (1) of the Personal Data Protection Act (hereafter IKS) and Article 58 (1) point d and (2) points d, e and

Art 4 (11) GDPR. In accordance with Art 58(2)(d), the Finnish DPA instructs the controller to align its process to obtain consent with the GDPR provisions

In an Article 60 GDPR procedure, the Norwegian DPA ordered an HR-services provider, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, to provide the data subject with

minimisation, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d). The Garante also fined the company €20000 for its breach of Articles 5(1)(a) and (c) GDPR. In determining the amount

regulated in article 32 of the GDPR, which regulates the security of the treatment. IV. Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR establishes

circumstances of the specific case (art. 58, par. 2, letter i) Regulation). 4. Order for an injunction. Pursuant to art. 58(2)(i) of the Regulation and art. 166(3)

in line with Article 13 GDPR. On the DSB's request, the controller declared R*** Hotels GmbH as its representative under Article 27 GDPR and sent a reply

under Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. The Authority ordered the Health Service to carry out a DPIA and bring its processing operations in line with the GDPR within

to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also ordered the controller to comply with the principles

controller) about €352,555 (NOK 4,000,000) for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR after a serious ransomware attack led to highly

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

reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also ordered the controller to define

The AEPD then issued the MCP with a warning under Article 83(5)(b) and pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) ordered the MCP to adapt its information provision

constituted a violation of Articles 123(2) and 132-ter of the Italian Privacy Code. Applying Articles 58(2)(d) and (2)(i), the Garante ordered Iliad to adapt

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

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

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

Company itself, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation, Article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code and Article 18 of Law no. 689/1981

reasons the Italian DPA, with the power conferred by Article 58(2)(d) and (f) and Article 83(3) and (5) GDPR, imposed to Fastweb multiple corrective measures

administrative fine in the amount of 2,000,000 ISK on the controller under Article 83(2)(a) GDPR and Article 83(2)(g) GDPR. This is just one of five decisions

homeowner’s association. The DPA fined the controller $300 under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR and ordered that the cameras be removed or reoriented so that they

with Article 58 section 2 C, the DPA ordered the controller to delete the data subject’s data in accordance with Article 17 GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d)

violated Article 12(3) and Article 21 GDPR by not respecting the data subject's objection. Based on its powers pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, the DPA

context of employment as per Article 88 GDPR. For these reasons, the Garante: - With the power conferred by Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, imposed a fine of €20,000

within the meaning of Article 4(15) GDPR and Article 9(1) GDPR. Processing of sensitive data requires a legal basis under Article 9(2) GDPR. In the present case

access request (Article 15 GDPR). Therefore, the controller violated Article 12(2) GDPR. The DPA reprimanded the controller (Article 58(2)(b) GDPR) and ordered

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

instruction to ensure compliance with the GDPR, the ANSPDCP did not explicitly refer to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR but it can be assumed that the instruction

investigation, in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also imposed on the controller the corrective measure to provide and communicate all the

provisions of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. The DPA fined the processor €2,000 for this data breach. Under the Article 58(2)(d) GDPR it was decided

compliance with Article 32(1) and issued reprimands in respect of the infringements, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(b), (d), and (i) GDPR respectively. Procedure

that a fine of €2,000 be set for the infringement of Article 13 GDPR as defined in Article 83(5) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR the Spanish DPA

which the data are processed. At the same time, pursuant to art. 58 para. (2) lit. d) from the RGPD, the following corrective measures were ordered against

personal data. The DPA also issued a formal notice pursuant of Article 58(2)(d) GDPR and Article 20.II of the French Data Protection Act to limit the retention

freedoms that could not be mitigated, and referred to Article 36(1) GDPR and Article 36(2) GDPR. The DPA ordered the municipality to: Change the data processing

violation of Article 32 GDPR since the controller did not implement the measures necessary to prevent such disclosure. Under Article 58 (2)(d) GDPR, Speedy

to Article 58(2)(a) and ordered the controller to bring its processing operations into compliance with the GDPR, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR. Share

Finnish DPA therefore instructed the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR to bring the processing operations in line with the rules on the

6(1)(a) GDPR and 4(11) GDPR. Therefore, the controller violated Articles 5(2) and 5(1)(a) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d)

In an Article 60 GDPR procedure, the DPA of Malta reprimanded a controller (Article 58(2)(b) GDPR) for requesting the data subject to sign an agreement

6(1)(a) GDPR and 4(11) GDPR and did therefore violate Articles 5(2) and 5(1)(a) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR to ensure

32(2) GDPR for insufficient risk assessment of security measures in the MyPostNord service, and ordered the controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR

erasure request pursuant of Article 58(2)(d) GDPR. Also, the DPA ordered the controller pursuant of Article 58(2)(d) GDPR to provide the data subject information

cf. Article 35 of the Data Protection Regulation. The order is announced in accordance with the data protection regulation, article 58, subsection 2, letter

data protection regulation article 6 no. 1 letter f. 2. Pursuant to the Personal Protection Regulation article 58 no. 2 letter d, Recover AS is ordered to

6(1)(a) GDPR. The Italian DPA ordered the controller to erase personal data and stop the processing pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) and (f) GDPR. The DPA

according to Article 83(4)(a) GDPR. However, the AEPD imposed no fines in either of the two violations. Instead, according to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the AEPD

Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) of the GDPR, the DPA ordered Associazione Rousseau to comply with the provisions of Article 28(3)(g) of the GDPR by ensuring

to Articles 114 and 157 of the Privacy Code. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) GDPR and 83 GDPR, the DPA imposed an administrative fine of €6,000.00, and an order

violated Article 6 (1) point f) of the GDPR. (61) The Authority grants the Requester's request and, based on Article 58 (2) point d) of the GDPR, instructs

of fairness pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR.” Summary of Envisaged Action The DPC made an order pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, requiring Meta IE to

third parties. In addition, through the authority identified in Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the Italian DPA orders PagoPA S.p.A to adopt the appropriate technical

of fairness pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR”. Summary of Envisaged Action The DPC made an order pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, requiring Meta IE to

per Article 57(1)(a) GDPR, Article 57(1)(h) GDPR, cf. Article 58(1)(a) GDPR, Article 58(1)(b) GDPR, Article 58(1)(e) GDPR and Article 58(1)(f) GDPR. The

Applicant concerned infringes Article 12 (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 25 (2) and Article 58 (2) (d) of the General Data Protection

Union Article 58 of the General Data Protection Regulation in particular by alerting the controller or processor. In accordance with Article 58 (2) (d) of

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

controller, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, ordering the controller to bring its processing activities in line with the GDPR. The DPA also imposed an

of the data subject ('storage limitation');'. Article 58(2)(d) of the GDPR reads: "Article 58 Powers (2) Each supervisory authority shall have all of the

found that the company violated Article 7 (3) GDPR, Article 12 (2) GDPR, Article 17 (1)(b)GDPR and Article 24 (1) GDPR, by failing to implement appropriate

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

measures, as per Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, have been adopted, obliging the controller to complete implementation of relevant technical and organizational measures

enforceable order against the Job Centre under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR to bring its processing into compliance with the GDPR and re-designate the dismissed DPO. The

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

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

administrative penalty fee: 1) Article 5, Paragraph 1, subparagraphs d and a; 2) Article 13; 3) paragraph 3 of Article 12; and 4) Article 15(1). Viking Line Oy

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

based on Article 3, paragraph 2, Article 5, paragraph 1 a), f) of GDPR subsection, Article 6(1), Article 9(2), Article 58(2)(d), GDPR Article 23 and Article

to the complaint (Article 83 (2) (f) GDPR), not linking the activity of the offender to the processing of personal data (Article 76 (2) (b) LOPDGD), the

breached Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and ordered all 53 municipalities to bring their processing in line with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1) GDPR, by ensuring

with Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Thus, the Danish DPA held that the processing was also not following the principles of Article 5(1)

of RON 12,424 (approximately €2,500). At the same time, the DPA imposed a corrective measure based on Article 58(2)(d) GDPR and ordered the controller to

deletion request of the data in question, breaching Article 17(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to remedy the irregularities

basis of Article 6(1)(e) GDPR - public interest - or the legal basis of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR - legitimate interest. Moreover, Article 21(3) GDPR specifically

GDPR. As result, the controller was fined approximately €5,000 (RON 24,745). Furthermore, using their powers laid down in Article 58(2)(d) GDPR , the DPA

9871 (approximately €2000) for these violations. In accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also imposed corrective measures. First, the DPA ordered

data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed." As such, under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the controller was ordered to take into account the risk assessment

the wording of Article 77(1) GDPR and from Article 58(2)(d) GDPR that national DPAs only have competence to take action with respect to GDPR violations that

with Chapter V of the GDPR. Therefore, it requested the Irish DPA to adopt against Meta an order pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR. The EDPB also established

9,798.6 (approximately €2000). In accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA also imposed corrective measures. First, it ordered the data controller

the basis of article 6.1 e) GDPR read together with articles 5.2 GDPR and 24.1 GDPR. 3) Violation of Articles 12.1, 12.6, 13.1 and 13.2 GDPR: the Inspection

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

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

the DPA ordered the controller under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR to bring is processing into compliance with the GDPR by: reviewing and updating the technical

under Article 83(2) and (3) GDPR. As such, Uipath SRL was fined 346,598 RON, equivalent to €70,000. In addition, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the

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

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

reference, see Article 143 of the Code). However, detailed time-limits can be found in Regolamento n. 2/2019 cited above. Under Article 154 of the Code

pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. In accordance with article 83 GDPR, and taking into account the factors outlined in Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, the DPC also

Articles 5(2) and 24(1) GDPR as to how it demonstrates its compliance with the GDPR. This order is notified pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR. According

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

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

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

service. Finally, in June 2020, the DPA issued a decision based on Article 58(2)(d) GDPR. The property company filed an application for interim relief against

pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR and ordered the controller to bring its processing operations in compliance with the GDPR, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR

controller processed personal data without a legal basis. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to stop publishing posts containing

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

nung, Article 33 GDPR, margin number 15 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd edition). König, Schaupp, in Knyrim, Der Datkomm, Article 79 GDPR, margin number 58/1 (rdb

4(1) GDPR. Moreover, it noted that all processing of personal data has to comply with Article 6 GDPR and the principles of Article 5(1) GDPR, which also included

subsection 1, subsection 2 clause 8, § 58 subsection 1 of the Personal Data Protection Act and personal data on the basis of Article 58(2)(d) of the General Regulation

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

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

having infringed Article 14 GDPR by failing to provide all of the relevant information required therein. Pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, Datatilsynet orders

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

based on Article 3, Clause 2, Article 5, Clause 1 of the Data Regulation "a", "b" and point 2, Article 6, point 1, point "a", Article 7, Article 27, point

DPA found that the controller violated Article 5(1)(c) and Article 25 GDPR. In accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller to bring

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. See comment under Article 33(3)(d) of the GDPR. As indicated by the phrase “at least” found under Article 34(2) GDPR, this list of information

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

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

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

according to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR. First, the AEPD established that the GDPR was applicable under Article 3(1) GPDR or, if not, at least Article 3(2)(a) GDPR

the GDPR: i. Articles 5.1.a) and 5.2, as well as Article 6.1 GDPR; ii. Articles 12.1 and 12.2, Article 15.1, Article 5.2, Article 24.1, and Article 25.1

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

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

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

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)

deadline of Article 36(1) GDPR, and it is still disputed whether the outcome of the procedure rather resembles that of Article 58(3)(a) GDPR or Article 58(3)(b)

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

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

imposition of an administrative fine (7.2). Accordingly, the DPC made an order pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, requiring Whatsapp IE to bring processing

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

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

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

controller and an order (pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR) to bring the data processing operations in compliance with the GDPR. Share your comments here! Share

subject rights, and hence is not contrary to Article 12(5) GDPR. Consequently, and pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the Finnish DPA ordered the controller

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

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

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

under Articles 58(1)(d) or 58(3)(a) and 58(3)(b) GDPR do not qualify as decisions and cannot be subject to legal actions under Article 78(1) GDPR. A data subject

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

accordance with the GDPR’s principles and with appropriate safeguards when the LED is not directly applicable. Article 2(2)(d) GDPR excludes any processing

controllers have violated Article 5(1)(a), Article 6(1), Article 13, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 25, Article 32, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Articles 44 and 46

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

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

(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

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

organisation), Article 45(5) GDPR (revocation, change of such determinations); Articles 46(2)(c) and (d) GDPR (standard protection clauses); Article 47(3) GDPR (formats

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

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

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

reprimand to the controller under Article 58(2)(b) GDPR and an order to the controller pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) GDPR to bring the processing operations

constituting a breach of Article 12(2) GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR, as well as Article 15 GDPR, Article 17 GDPR and Article 21(2) GDPR. Thus, the calls carried

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

controller to be in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and started a procedure to adopt

to violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR. VII Classification of the infringement of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 83.5 of the GDPR provides the following:

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

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

days (Article 58(2)(d) GDPR) and to, within 20 days of this deadline, communicate the measures taken to comply with the order (Article 58(1)(a) GDPR). Share

above-mentioned decision of October 2, 2020 was amenable to a remedy pursuant to Section 68 (2) AVG. D.2. ruling point 2. a) a) General information on the

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%

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

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

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

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

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

protection regulation's article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letter a, Article 24, cf. Article 28, subsection 1, Article 35, subsection 1, as

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

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

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

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 class

relation to Article 5(1)(a) and (f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), (c), (d), (d), (e) and (f)

imposed on OpenAI a temporary limitation of processing pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. Such limitation concerns all processing operations involving data

particular case". According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the measure provided for in article 58.2 d) of the aforementioned Regulation is compatible

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

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

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

relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, in its article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures" establishes that: "2. In accordance with

to DEUTSCHE BANK SAE requirement 02/17/2023 Allegations of D.D.D. 02/17/2023 Response to D.D.D. 02/24/2023 Response to HOLALUZ-CLIDOM SA requirement 03/03/2023

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

the GDPR. In light of this, the Court agreed with the DPA that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article

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

person.” Article 9.2 of the GDPR however means that: “Section 1 will not apply when one of the following circumstances occurs:” which cover article 9.2.a) to

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

particular". According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the measure provided for in article 58.2.d) of the aforementioned Regulation is compatible

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

the procedure, in accordance with the provisions in the aforementioned article 58.2 d) of the RGPD, according to which each control authority may “order the

with article 4.1 of the RGPD, is a personal data. nal and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said regulation. In article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

with the provided for in article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD.

as Article 57 (1) (a), Article 58 (2) (e) and (i), Article 83 (1) - (3) and Article 83 (4) (a) in connection with Article 33 (1) and Article 34 (1), (2)

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

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

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

life insurance company had breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR as its as its practice was to process

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

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

made on 13/04/18 by the user, Ms. D.D.D., requesting the Universal Supply Point Code, located in the ***DIRECTION.2. In order to provide the CUPS code

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

45 of the GDPR. - The person in charge cannot base the transfer of data on the clauses contractual type provided for in arts. 46.2.c and 46.2.d of the GDPR

accordance with the powers that article 58.2 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter GDPR), grants each control authority

particular case". According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the measure provided for in article 58.2.d) of the aforementioned Regulation is compatible

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

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

for the submitting of all the reasons for which no sanction of the GDPR Article 58 par.2(a), (b), (e) & (i) should be imposed on Cyprus Police. Eventually

these facts: one for the violation of article 5.1.f) RGPD, and another for article 32 GDPR. x Article 58.2 of the GDPR provides the following: “Each supervisory

processing time. 2. Decision on order and infringement fine The Data Inspectorate makes the following decisions: 1. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (2) of the Privacy

regard being had to the powers provided for in Article 51(1) GDPR and those conferred by Article 58(2)(b) and (d) of that regulation? (3) Must the independence

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

referred to Article 5(1)(a) (principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency), Article 12(1), Article 7, Article 13 and Article 14 GDPR, the corresponding

to in Article 58, paragraph 2, letters a) to h) and j). In this way the corrective measures, which are all those provided for in the article 58.2 of the

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

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

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)

5(1)(a), (d) and (f), 9 and 32(1)(b) GDPR.” Pursuant to Article 58(2)(i), the DPA hence imposed an administrative fine as per Article 83(4) and (5) GDPR. Given

the authority initiated proceedings for the alleged infringement of Article 5(1)(d) GDPR against the political party aforementioned. The Political party acknowledged

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

following decision on 18 May 2020: "Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (g) of the Privacy Ordinance, cf. Article 16 of the Privacy Ordinance, we order Sbanken to

flows by the authority ofcontrol pursuant to Article 58 (2), or failure to provide access in breachof article 58, paragraph 1. "Organic Law 3/2018, on the

to or instead of the measures referred to in Article 58(2)(a) to (h) and (j) [..)', Article 83(2) of the GDPR recognizes the power of the national supervisory

protection authority control in accordance with Article 58(2) or failure to provide access in breach of Article 58(1). The Organic Law 3/2018, on the Protection

the census registration and payroll of Ms. B.B.B.  November 8, 2018 – D. D.D.D. (Brother of the claimant) send by mail the income 2017 (model100) from

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 60 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1781) and pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) in connection

in particular of children was in breach of Article 5, Article 6, Article 8, Article 9, and Article 25 GDPR. Consequently, the DPA urgently imposed upon

in Section 2 (2) defined in the General Data Protection Regulation in relation to may apply legal consequences. According to Article 58 (2) of the General

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

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

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

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

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

the supervisory authority with pursuant to article 58 (2), or failure to provide access in breach of article 58, Paragraph 1." Organic Law 3/2018, on Protection

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

and mitigate its effects (article 83.2.f, of the RGPD) -Basic personal identifiers (name, surname, address, D.N.I.) (article 83.2 g). Therefore, in accordance

company. In this case, it is not the consent referred to in Article 6(1)(a), Article 7 or Article 9(2)(a) of the Data Protection Regulation, but a separate permission

order issued by the Data Inspectorate pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. 2 (e). The following is a detailed examination of the

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

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

in article 58.2 of the GDPR. Between They have the power to impose an administrative fine in accordance with the article 83 of the RGPD -article 58.2 i)-

of article 6.1. of the RGPD typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 2. APPOINT D. C.C.C. as instructor. and as secretary to Mrs. D.D.D

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

only warned the plaintiff pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) of the DSGVO, but also ordered, pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) of the DSGVO, that the operation of

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

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

constitute a violation of Article 5 (1) (f) of the RGPD? For infringing Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 72(1)(a) LOPDGDD, the Spanish

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:

provisions of Article 58 (2) (i) of the GDPR, each supervisory authority has, inter alia, the power to impose an administrative fine under Article 83, depending

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

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:

technical nature –G. D.1, G.D.2, G.D.3 – or human when a manual call is made –G.D.4, G.E.7-). In the other cases it states the following: G.D.5-G.D.6: In these

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

breaching Article 12(3) GDPR, since it failed to notify the data subject that her erasure request was satisfied, as well as Article 24(1) GDPR, given that

of the measures referred to points (a) to (h) of Article 58(2) and Article 58(2)(a) to (h) paragraph 2(j). When deciding on the imposition of administrative

from the GDPR under Article 2(2) of the GDPR. 165. Article 2(2) of the GDPR outlines certain types of processing of personal data to which the GDPR does not

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

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

activities further violated Article 32(1)(b) and (d) GDPR. Accordingly, the DPA, in accordance with its powers under Article 58 (2) GDPR, imposed an administrative

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

email received the day before sent by D. D.D.D., responsible for occupational hazards, to the head of the claimant, D.C.C., with a copy to her, with which

Administrator of D. B.B.B., the company has not changed their legal representatives. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD

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

event of an infraction of the precepts of the GDPR. Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “2 Each supervisory authority shall have all of the

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

[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

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

with Article 5 (1) (a) and Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR. Thus, the controller failed to comply with the accountability principle under Article 5 (2) GDPR. Second

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

25/31 Order, pursuant to Article 58 (2) d) of the GDPR, the Controlled being brought into compliance with Article 12 (1) of the GDPR by making the following

and the Council in the context of Article 31, Article 58(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 83(1) to (3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679 of

event of a violation of the precepts of the RGPD. Article 58.2 of the GDPR provides the following: “2 Each supervisory authority will have all of the following

APPEAR: A D.D.D., for the violation of article 6 of the RGPD typified in article 83.5.a). REQUIRE: A D.D.D., in accordance with the provisions of article 58.2

in article 58.2 of the GDPR. Between They have the power to impose an administrative fine in accordance with the article 83 of the RGPD -article 58.2 i)-

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

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

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

60 days of receipt of this measure (art. 58, par. 2, letter d) Regulations); ORDER pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, letter i) of the Regulations, Mapei S.p

of the provision of Article 58(1) of the GGC, a fine in accordance with the provisions of Article 58(1) of the GGC. 2(i) of the GDPR, the effective, proportionate

authority, are established in article 58.2 of the RGPD. Among them are the power to sanction with warning -article 58.2 b) -, the power to impose an administrative

with the data protection laws, so, considering that the law [Article 58(2) and Whereas 148 GDPR] also makes possible for the supervisory authorities to decide

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

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

BACKGROUND FIRST: Ms. A.A.A., in the name and representation of D. B.B.B., D. C.C.C., D. D.D.D. and D.E.E.E. (hereinafter, the claimant), on March 16, 2022, filed

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

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

Móviles, S.A, by virtue of the powers established in Article 58.2 of the RGPD and in Articles 47, 64.2 and 68.1 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on Personal

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

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), the

violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/7 FIFTH: On

moreover, without informing them of their rights under Article 13 of the GDPR. Article 58 of the GDPR, Powers, states: "Each supervisory authority shall have

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

B.B., for the alleged violation of article 5.1.a) of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5.a) and 58.2.b) and d) of the aforementioned RGPD. " FIFTH:

significant negligent action (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) and that basic personal identifiers were affected (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). The economic volume of the

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

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

" 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

not constituting an infringement of article 5.1.c) of the GDPR. Likewise, in accordance with article 58.2.d) of the GDPR, the defendant was ordered to Proceed

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

could not be considered appropriate in accordance with Article 32(1) GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR regarding the online appointment booking system. As a result

investigation regarding the violation of Article 15(1)(b) and (c). In accordance with Article 58(2) and Article 83(2), the DPA fined Company A €1,500. Since

subjects, according to Article 33(1) GDPR and Article 34(1) GDPR? The PUODO held that the insurance company infringed the GDPR provisions, failing to notify

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 instructor. and as secretary

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

57(1)(a) and Article 58(2)(b) in connection with Article 5(1)(f), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1) and (2) of 2 of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European

CLIENTES, SAU with NIF A95758389, fromin accordance with the provisions of article 58.2 d) of the RGPD, so that within tendays proceed to order the data controller

art. 58, par. 2, of the RGPD. 6. Adoption of the injunction order for the application of the pecuniary administrative sanction (articles 58, par. 2, letter

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

44 to 49; (d) in accordance with Article IX; (e) failure to comply with an instruction of a supervisory authority pursuant to Article 58 (2) or a request

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

the principle of confidentiality, namely Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, and thus, it did not comply with Article 5(2) GDPR referred as the principle of "proactive

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

regard to Article 83 (2) (k) of the GDPR, Article 76 of the GDPR, ‘Sanctions and remedial measures’, provides: ‘2. In accordance with Article 83 (2) (k) of

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 €

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

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

a specified period - Article 58. 2 d)-. In accordance with Article 83(2) of the RGPD, the measure provided for in Article 58(2)(d) of that Regulation is

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

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

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

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

right of rectification of Article 16 GDPR and Article 14 of LOPDGDD, the national data protection law, the DPA stated that Article 12(4) LOPDGDD obliges the

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

15(1)(a)-(h) GDPR. For these reasons, under Article 58 GDPR, the HDPA reprimanded the controller for violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. In addition

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

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

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

with the provisions of article 58.2.i) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 9 of the RGPD, typified in the article 83.5 of the RGPD and for

sanction and the accessory sanctions (articles 58, paragraph 2, letter i and 83 of the Regulations; article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code). Pursuant to art

conjuncture with Articles 58(1)(a), 58(1)(e) and 58(2)(i) GDPR. It therefore imposed a €2000 fine on the defendant and applied corrective measures to get SC C&V

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

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

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

the social and health authority of a city to had breached Article 6 GDPR and Article 10 GDPR by requesting data subjects to provide it with personal data

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

” 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

notice in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and an order in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) to bring the processing

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

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

violated Articles 12(3), (4), 13(2)(b), 30(1)(d) and (g) of the GDPR and issued a warning by virtue of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR. Due to the anonimisation

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

not complied with Article 32 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 1 and 2, Article 33, para. Article 34 (3) (d) 1 and 2, and Article 5, para. 1, letter

of article 32.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/9 FIFTH:

as per Article 25 GDPR and the liability principle of 5(2) GDPR. The DPA finally found out that the provision on impact assessment, as per Article 35 GDPR

information provided was in breach of Article 13 GDPR. Therefore, the authority warned the controller (Article 83(5) GDPR) and requested to complete the notice

accordance with provided for in article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning

processing might be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest) and - regarding health data - on Article 9(2)b) GDPR (fulfilling obligations under

well as Art. 6 para. 1 of the GDPR. To 2): c) Article 50b (2) DSG 2000 (for the period prior to 25 May 2018) (d) Article 13(3) DSG (for the period from

by the alleged violation of Article 5.1(f) of the GDPR, Article 5.1(b) of the GDPR, as set out in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FOURTH: On 10 June 2020, the

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

violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.4 of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT C.C.C. as instructor. and, as secretary, to D.D.D., indicating

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

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

connection with parking permits; and (2) whether an order must be made to the controller in accordance with Article 58 (2) (d) of the General Data Protection

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

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

in this case must be qualified as the EU controller as referred to in Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46. 40 The fact that the Administrator of a Fan Page

instruction of this expe-tooth.WHAT: in accordance with article 58.2 of the RGPD, in relation to article 43.1of the LSSI, the corrective measure that could

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

I By virtue of the powers conferred on each of the parties by Article 58(2) of the GDPR authority, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 47

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

claimed entity,by virtue of the powers established in article 58.2 of the RGPD and in articles47, 64.2 and 68.1 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, on Data

2 of the GDPR, and with the provisions of article 76 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to section k) of the aforementioned article 83.2 GDPR. Article 83.2 of

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

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

right to portability of the data; d) when the treatment is based on article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or article 9, section 2, letter a), the existence of

controller HRK 2.15 million (approximately €283,000). It held that the controller violated Articles 25(1), 32(1)(b), 32(1)(d) and 32(2) GDPR by not taking

applicability of Article 2 (2) point d) GDPR, which reads as follows:“2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:(…)(d) by the competent

containing personal data. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I By virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each control authority, and as established

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

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

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

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

as well as the presentation d claim before the DGSFP and before this body for the same facts (article 83.2, a) of the GDPR). . - The activity of the claimed

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

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

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

significant (article 83.2 b). - The duration of the illegitimate treatment of the data of the affected party carried out by the claimed (article 83.2 d). That

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

subsection 2 point 8, § 58 subsection 1, § 10 of the Personal Data Protection Act (IKS) and Article 58 paragraph 1 point d and paragraph 2 of the General

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

relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, “Sanctions and corrective measures”, establishes that: “2. According to the

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

signifiesidentified catives (article 83.2 b) Basic personal identifiers -image- are affected (art 83.2g)VOn the other hand, article 83.7 of the RGPD provides

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

particular case". According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the measure provided for in article 58.2.d) of the aforementioned Regulation is compatible

other hand, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned article 58.2 d) of the RGPD, according to which each supervisory authority may 'order

parties (article 83.2.k, of the RGPD in relation to article 76.2.b, of the LOPDGDD). The balance of the circumstances contemplated in article 83.2 of the

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

infringement of Article 32.1 of the GDPR typified as a serious infringement in Article 73 f) of the LOPDGDD and in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. For its part

of measures, according to the aforementioned article 58.2 d) of the RGPD. c).- Violation of article 22.2 of the LSSI, due to the deficiencies detected

municipality €409,768 (NOK 4,000,000) for breaches of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR after a serious ransomware attack led to highly

applicable pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. i), and 83, par. 4, of the Regulation. 5. Corrective measures (art. 58, par. 2, letter d), of the Regulation).

the GDPR. Would judge otherwiseindeed contradict :o the wording of Article L2.2 in conjunction with Article 2.f) of the ePrivacy Directive,o Article 8 of

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

General Data Protection Regulation Article 5(1)(a), (b) and (c). Article 7 Article 9 Article 25 paragraph 2 Article 58 Article 83 Data Protection Act Section

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 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)

5, 6, 10, 12 and 25 of the Data Protection Regulation. Pursuant to Article 58 (2) (d) of the Data Protection Regulation, the controller shall order the

the data subject objects to the processing in accordance with Article 21(2);'. Article 17.1(d) AVG "1. The data subject shall have the right to obtain from

” 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

for the highest amount . "Article 58.2 b) of the RGPD indicates the possibility of sanctioning withwarning, and section 2 d) establishes that each supervisory

Corrective measures (Article 58, par. 2, letter d), of the Regulation) With regard to the security measures implemented to date, taking into account the

22; " Article 83.7 of the RGPD indicates: “Without prejudice to the corrective powers of the control authorities by virtue of the Article 58 (2), each

of the GDPR, when proceed, in a certain way and within a specified period -article 58. 2 d) -. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2 of the

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

statute of limitations, in Article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD. V Article 58.2 of the GPRS, under the heading "Powers", states that: "2 Each supervisory authority

NIF.1, for the alleged violation of article 5.1.a) of the RGPD, in accordance with Article 83.5.a) and 58.2.b) and d) of the aforementioned RGPD. " No allegations

I By virtue of the powers that Article 58.2 of the RGPD grants to each control authority, and as established in Article 47 of Organic Law 3/2018, of December

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

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

authority, are established in article 58.2 of the RGPD. In-Among them are the power to sanction with warning -article 58.2 b) -,C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd

circumstances of the specific case (Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i) of the Regulation). 4. Injunction order. Pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. i) of the Regulations

to whom the personal data was disclosed pursuant to article 17 paragraph 2 and article 19, [...]". 2.2 According to the Guidelines 5/2020 of the ESPD regarding

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

without a legal basis, cf. Article 6 (1) (f) of the Privacy Regulation. 2. Pursuant to the Privacy Ordinance art. 58 no. 2 letter d is imposed on Aquateknikk

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

is issued pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 41 (2) (d) of the Data Protection Act. Paragraph 2 (5) shall be punishable

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

" 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

stop. Therefore, Mr D lodged a second complaint alleging the ongoing violation of Article 6 GDPR. The AEPD finds the violation of Article 6 quite apparent

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

sedeagpd.gob.es 3/8 (…) " III Sections b), d) and i) of article 58.2 of the RGPD provide the following: “2 Each supervisory authority shall have all the

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

this regulation in accordance with Article 57 (1) (a) GDPR and which has the powers in accordance with Article 58 GDPR. For this reason alone, there was

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

Law", which is a requirement of Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Therefore, the controller could not rely on Article 9(2)(j) GDPR for its processing. Third, the DPA

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 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

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

information”, article 83.2 f) of the GDPR. (IV) "The non-existence of benefits obtained through the infringement", article 83.2 k) of the GDPR and 76.2 c) of the

Protection is competent to initiate this procedure. Sections 1) and 2) of article 58 of the RGPD, list, respectively, the investigative and corrective powers

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

breach of the principles and guarantees set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679; V Article 58 (2) GDPR reads: ‘Each supervisory authority shall have

paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, letter b) of the Regulation; 9, paragraphs 1, 2, 4, of the Regulation, Articles 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3 and 2-septies, paragraph

other remedy provided for in Art. 58 sec. 2 of Regulation 2016/679, and in particular stopping at an admonition (Article 58 (2) (b)), would not be proportional

(Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 of the Regulation; Article 166(7) of the Code). Pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 of the Regulation and Article 166(7) of

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

issued by virtue of the power conferred by Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is a machine

provisions of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, it allows setting a penalty of 2,000 euros (two thousand euros). V Measures Article 58.2 of the GDPR establishes

organizational measures implemented by him pursuant to art. 25 and 32 (Article 83 (2 ) (d) of Regulation 2016/679); The breach found was related to the lack

(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

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

contemplated in Article 83 (2) GDPR, in this case, the aggravating circumstances for being a non-intentional but significant negligent action (Article 83 (2) (b)

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

violated the provisions of this Regulation" (Article 58.2.b)) and to "impose a fine under Article 83" (Article 58.2.b)).The Commission will be able to impose

expressed in Article 5 (1 ) (a)) f, and reflected in the obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1), Article 32 (1 ) (b ) and (d) and Article 32 (2)

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

on the merits in accordance with Article 98 et seq. DPAA, to: - pursuant to Article 58.2(c) of the GDPR and Article 95(1)(5) of the DPAA , to order the

Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter f, for failure to assess protests, cf. Article 21, and for lack of information, cf. Article 13. 2. Pursuant to Article 58 (2)

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

pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, of the Regulation to have to: - to impose on Reti Televisive Italiane Spa, pursuant to art. 58, par. 2, lett. f), of the

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

processing of personal data (83 (2) (k) GDPR); the fact that basic personal identifiers are affected (83 (2) (g) GDPR); the intentionality or negligence

Legal basis: Article 4 lines 1, 2 and 5, Article 11 paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 12 paragraph 2, Article 17 paragraph 1 and Article 58 paragraph 2 lit. c of

Articles 5 and 6 GDPR? The AEPD held that publishing personal data on Twitter without the consent of the claimant is a violation of Article 6 GDPR, due to the

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

violation of article 28.2 typified in Article 83.4 a) GDPR. SIXTY THOUSAND EUROS (€60,000) for alleged violation of article 28.3 typified in Article 83.4 a)

to obtain the transfer of data; (d) where processing is based on point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2), that the data subject shall have

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

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

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

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

transparency, cf. Article 5(1)(a), and accuracy, cf. Article (5)(1)(d), they hadn't recorded the processing activity as required in Article 30, hadn't conducted

to art. 58, par. 2, of the RGPD. 6. Adoption of the injunction order for the application of the pecuniary administrative sanction (art. 58, par. 2, lett

According to Article 83(2) GDPR, administrative fines should be imposed in addition to or instead of the measures referred to in Article 58(2)(a) to (h)

violation of Article 5, Article 6, and Article 25 GDPR. It ordered the controller to comply with the data subject's erasure request pursuant to Article 17(1)(d)

violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 2 2/6 FOURTH:

consent, is in violation of Article 17(1)(b) of the GDPR. 8. On the basis of Article 58, Paragraph 2, Point d) of the GDPR, the Authority instructs Customer

” 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

(i) where measures referred to in Article 58(2) have previously been (i) where measures referred to in Article 58(2) have previously been ordered against

GDPR in relation to articles 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR and article 7 of Spanish Law LOPDGDD. For this reason, with the power conferred by article 58(2) GDPR,

council for an infringement of Article 32 GDPR. The AEPD dropped the case due to the time limitations outlined in Article 72 and 73 LOGPD. The access to

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

image ofinstallation)".FOUNDATIONS OF LAWIBy virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each authoritycontrol, and as established in