Search results

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

specialized website. AG Bobek is also of the opinion that Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR do not preclude national rules from laying down, without

Articles 6(1)(c) and (e), 6(3) and 9(1) GDPR. The preliminary questions concern the issue whether the existence of a legal obligation – Article 6(1)(c) GDPR

proportionality of the measure under Article 6(4) GDPR, in accordance with the objectives referred to in Article 23(1) GDPR. It recalled that these objectives

their health status, without appropriate legal grounds, as required by art. 6 GDPR and art 2-ter and 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code, and going against

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

par. 1, letter a) and c); 6, par. 1, letter c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, letter b) and Article 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, caused by the conduct of the

Articles 6(1)(c) or 6(1)(e). Therefore, the DPA issued a sanction of €2000 against the Municipality for violating Articles 6(1)(c), (e), 6(2), and 6(3)(b).

with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject, under Article 6 (1) (c) GDPR. In this case, the compliants' personal data remained published

to be heard by the Authority, within 30 days (Article 166, paragraphs 6 and 7, of the Code, and Article 18, paragraph 1, by Law No. 689 of 24/11/1981)

with art. 5 and 6 of the GDPR? The DPA held that Regione Campania violated art 5(1)(a)(c), art. 6(1)(c)(e), art. 6(2) and art. 6(3)(b) GDPR, and concluded

Municipality lawful in accordance with Articles 5(1)(c), 6(1)(c), (e), 6(2), and 6(3)(b) GDPR? The DPA held that the disclosure of the personal data by

Art. 6 para. 1 sentence 1 lit. c, para. 3 sentence 1, Art. 86 GKG § 47 (1), § 52 (2), § 53 (2) no. 2, § 63 (3) sentence 1 no. 2, § 66 (3) sentence 3, § 68

the processing, together with the Privacy Ordinance Article 6 No. 1 letter c or e, cf. Article 6 No. 3, as of Arendal municipality is stated as a basis for

legal basis for processing the data under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. The Latvian DPA also held that Article 6(1)(e) GDPR could not be relied upon as a legal basis

the present case. Under Article 6.3.b) andof recital 45 of the GDPR, processing based on Article 6.1.e) must fulfill twoconditions:- The data controller

reasons, article 780, 3° of the Judicial Code, article 149 of the Constitution and article 6 of the ECHR - the pleas not explicitly stated. 17.3.3. The Procurement

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

legal obligation within the meaning of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. The second and third question Since Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is the legal basis for the controller's

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

the Slovenian National Institute of Public Health? The IP held that Article 6(3) GDPR applies in this context. As such the legal basis for processing is

King under Article 88 of the Belgian Constitution. Lawfulness The DPA examined the existence of a legal basis on the basis of Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, which requires

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

follows from Article 6 (3) of the GDPR that the legal basis for the processing referred to in Article 6 (1), preamble and under c, of the GDPR must be determined

articles 6(2) and 6(3) GDPR allow the Member States to introduce more specific provisions to adapt the application of the rules of Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, the

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)

processing of personal data on the basis of Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and the requirement of Article 6(3)(b) GDPR was satisfied, too. Also, the VGH held it to

DPA held that the controller had violated Article 6(1) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR, thus also Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, for lack of legal basis for publishing

follows from Article 6(3) of the Basic Regulation that legal obligations in other Member States are not relevant. Furthermore, Article 3(1), first sentence

including the general conditions on the 10Art. 6, 1, (c) of the GDPR. 11 art. 6, 1, (e) of the GDPR 12Art. 6.3 of the AVG. Decision on the merits 124/2021

authority under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and whether a clear legal obligation prescribing such processing was given as per Article 6(3) GDPR. In this, the DPA

the City wished to rely on Articles 6(1)(e) and 9(1)(g) GDPR. Under Article 6(3) GDPR, reliance on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR as a legal basis for processing must

foreseen in Article 6(3) GDPR and its counterpart of the national law, Article 8 of Ley Orgánica 3/2018. On the other hand, Article 86 of the GDPR foresees

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

recitals of the GDPR and to Article 86 GDPR which concerns public access to official documents, as well as Article 6(2) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR which provides

17 (1) (c) GDPR also opens up to provisions of national law via the implicit reference to Art. 6 GDPR; According to Art. 6 Para. 2, 3 GDPR, the national

to events during the Covid-19 pandemic violates Articles 5, 6(3)(b), 9, 13, 14, 25 and 32 GDPR. On the 22nd of April 2021, the Decree Law (decreto legge)

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

legislator used the open clause of Article 6(1)(c) and (e) GDPR, in combination with Article 6(2) and Article 6(3) GDPR, to create a legal basis for the

Protection Regulation article 6 no. 1 letters c and e, and that the supplementary legal basis according to article 6 no. 3 was Church Act § 3 no. 10 and provisions

and (1)(e) of Article 6 GDPR. The violation of Article 2-ter of the Code is a direct consequence of the violation of Articles 5 and 6 GDPR. Finally, the

and (2) GDPR; b. a breach of Article 12(1) and (6) GDPR, Article 13(1) and (2) GDPR and Article 14(1) and (2) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR

basis of consent, Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. In particular, Article 6 (1) (c) (legal obligation of the controller and Article 6 (1) (e) GDPR (public interest)

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

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

materia di protezione dei dati personali”; and of Article 6(1)(c), Article 6(1)(e), Article 6(2) and Article 6(3)(b). The Italian DPA did not impose a fine because

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

accordance with Article 6(2) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR for adaptation to the application of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The court stressed

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

safeguards (see Article 32(1)(a) GDPR); Handling of personal data breaches (see Article 34(3)(a) GDPR); Changing purposes of data processing (Article 6(4)(e) GDPR);

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

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

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

on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. In particular, the appellant argued that pursuant to Article 6(3) GDPR, a public interest task under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR must

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

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

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

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 32 GDPR, margin number 29 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 32 GDPR, margin number

between Article 21(3) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR on the right to erasure must be considered. The tight relationship between Article 21(3) and Article 17(1)(c)

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

with Article 6(3) GDPR, the national law lays down, 1) the basis for such processing and, 2) the purposes of that processing or, as regards Article 6(1)(e)

Moreover, the texts the airport relied upon did not refer, as required by Article 6(3) GDPR, to the purpose of the processing, to the description of the processing

the meaning of Article 9 of the GDPR must indeed be based on Article 9.2 of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 6.1 of the GDPR. 24 This has been

under the material part of the GDPR and the controller-processor agreement pursuant to Article 28 GDPR. Article 82(6) GDPR states that claims for damages

compliance with the GDPR. Article 28(3)(h) GDPR enables such a task in case processors are used. According to Article 28(3)(h) GDPR, the processor should

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

(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)

Regulation (GDPR), Article 7 GDPR, p. 350 (Oxford University Press 2020). Heckmann, Paschke, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 7 GDPR, margin

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

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

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

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

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

and interpretation as in Article 22(3) GDPR. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 22 GDPR Article 20 of GDPR proposal, COM(2012) 11 final

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

Kühling/Buchner, DSGVO, Article 2 GDPR, margin number 15 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Bäcker, in Wolff, Brink, BeckOK Datenschutzrecht, Article 2 GDPR, margin number

all related decisions in Category:Article 3 GDPR EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1)

EDPB in accordance with Article 70(1)(b) GDPR. According to Article 45(5) GDPR, the continued monitoring referred to in paragraph 3, or other information

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

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

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 78 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition); Körffer in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 78 GDPR, margin numbers 3-5, (C.H

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 authorities

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

64(2) GDPR). The remaining paragraphs of Article 64(3)-(8) GDPR lay down substantive rules and a detailed procedure for the EDPB’s opinions. Article 64(1) GDPR

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

standards of clarity (Article 61(3) GDPR). Requests are imperative and, subject to specific exceptions (Article 61(4) and (5) GDPR), must be fulfilled and

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

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

lead SA (“LSA”) (Article 65(1)(b) GDPR), and where a SA is not following an opinion of the EDPB (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR). Article 65(1)(a) GDPR addresses the

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

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

pursuant to Article 6 GDPR; the principles of data processing pursuant to Article 5 GDPR; the data subjects’ rights pursuant to Articles 12-23 GDPR; the obligation

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

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

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

requested certification. 6. The requirements referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article and the criteria referred to in Article 42(5) shall be made public

harmonized by Article 58(1) GDPR, this second type of joint operations only makes sense if the law of the sending State – based on Article 58(6) GDPR – contains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of each Member State (Article 68(3) GDPR). The EDPS is a member, but has only limited voting rights pursuant to Article 68(6) GDPR. In this respect, the

requirements of data minimization (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR). Under Article 30(1)(f) GDPR, where possible, the controller

from 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

simple majority principle under Article 72(1) GDPR would have applied regardless of Article 73(1) GDPR. In addition, the GDPR explicitly legislates for a simple

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

defendant 1) on Article 6.1 e) GDPR. Article 6.1 GDPR which is the concretization of it principle of lawfulness as referred to in Article 5.1 a) GDPR, prescribes

use of trusted third party verification services. Article 8(3) GDPR makes it clear that Article 8(1) GDPR only refers to consent, not to the object of the

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

not directly mentioned by Article 33(3)(b)-(d) GDPR could be shared as additional information by the controller Article 34(3) GDPR lists three exemptions

opening clause under Article 88(1) GDPR, any rules introduced must meet the criteria imposed by Article 88(2) GDPR. Lastly, Article 88(3) GDPR imposes an obligation

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

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

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

infringement of Article 38.3 of the GDPR, but no infringement on Article 38. 1, 38.2 and 38.6 of the GDPR and no infringement of Article 39 of the GDPR. 5. On February

processing through Article 15 GDPR. See, Kamann, Braun, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck 2018

GDPR BDSG, Article 71 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Dix in Kühling, Buchner, GDPR BDSG, Article 71 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck

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

5(1)(a) , 6(1)(e) and 9(2)(i) GDPR, but that the AMA had retained the certificates beyond the retention period prescribed by Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. Firstly

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

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

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

caseload has increased significantly since the GDPR came into effect. The DPA informs that cases take at least 3-6 months, often significantly longer. The Privacy

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

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) GDPR)

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

Datkomm, Article 80 GDPR, margin number 6 (rdb.at 2018). Bergt in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 80 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition)

relying on another legal basis under Article 6 GDPR, or can use either of the exceptions under Article 17(3) GDPR, the processing can carry on. The controller

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

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

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

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

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

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

shall apply from 25 May 2018. There is no relevant recital for Article 99 GDPR. Article 99 GDPR sets out the dates of the Regulation's entry into force and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

enforcement of the GDPR. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 59 GDPR Selmayr, in Ehmann, Selmayr, DS-GVO Kommentar, Article 59 GDPR, margin number

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

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

Belisario, GDPR e normativa privacy – Commentario, Article 90 GDPR, p. 662 (Wolters Kluwer 2018). Piltz in Gola DS-GVO, Article 90 GDPR, margin numbers 6-7 (C

exchange of knowledge between them. This way, Article 50 GDPR expands the exhortation under Article 57(1)(g) GDPR that calls for cooperation between EU DPAs

from any of the GDPR’s protections. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 39 GDPR Just as Article 38 GDPR, Article 39 GDPR also shows similarities

procedural aspects of the use of GDPR and other aspects which the GDPR leaves for definition to the member states (for ex. Art. 6(3), some aspects of Art. 9(2)

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

invoke Article 6 (1) (e) alone as the court the basis of treatment. 4.3. Requirements for additional legislation pursuant to Article 6 (3) Article 6 (3) lays

official authority vested in the controller. It follows from Article 6(2) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR that this legal basis requires a supplementary legal basis

filling this section! According to § 14(1)(1)(6) BDSG the BfDI is responsible for complaints under Article 77 GDPR. The BfDI has to inform the complainant about

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

with Article 22, GDPR. 55       5.3.2.1. The processing of personal data is lawful in accordance with Article 6, Paragraph 1, Letter e of the GDPR. The

to Union law insofar as it affects non-public bodies. Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR only give the member states regulatory leeway to regulate

required for data processing in accordance with Article 6(1)(e) GDPR in accordance with Article 6(3)(1)(b) GDPR (OLG Schleswig, judgment of July 2nd, 2021 -

of the Slovak Data Protection Act implements Article 77 GDPR. The complaint shall include (Section 100 (3)): The name, surname, correspondence address

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

demonstrate compliance (“accountability”).” Art. 6 GDPR: Article 6, GDPR: According to Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the GDPR, processing is only lawful if at least one

controller (Article 6(1)(e) GDPR), as long as this is laid down in national law (Article 6(3)(b) GDPR). The Tribunal then looked into Article 12(5) of the

The Court’s conclusion follows from reading Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy directive in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC, and noting that

basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR: “...there is a risk that the Draft Decision’s failure to establish Whatsapp IE's infringement of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, pursuant

the GDPR by Brave, page 6 - https://brave.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Brave-2020-DPA-Report.pdf Report: Europe’s governments are failing the GDPR by

complaint with the CNIL regarding an alleged infringement of the GDPR. According to Article 10 of the Decree n°2019-536, the complaint will be deemed rejected

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%

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

Spain the GDPR is developed by the Ley Orgánica 3/2018 de Protección de Datos Personales y garantía de los derechos digitales (LOPDGDD). Article 7.2 LOPDGDD

rely on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR in the context of its offering of the Instagram Terms of Use, and to include an infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR” (Para 137)

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

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

recipients are provided with access .6 1.3.6 How long the processed personal data is stored ......................6 1.3.7 In which countries the personal

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

the personal data to be provided pursuant to Article 15(1) GDPR: must Article 15(3) first sentence of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that, due to the

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

regulation[1] article 5, subsection 2, cf. Article 5, subsection 1, letters c and f, and Article 5, subsection 1, letter a, cf. Article 6, subsection 1

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 months after

rely on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR in the context of its offering of the Facebook Terms of Service, and to include an infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR” (Para

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

personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR. Their processing would require the data subjects' explicit consent under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and § 151(4) GewO,

: “can” in Art. 6 Para. 3 third sentence GDPR). Ultimately sees Art. 6 Para. 3 fourth sentence GDPR also applies to processing Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. e leg

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

DPA, nor (3) an exemption under Article 49 of the GDPR applies, if this is done as reproduced in the written statement of 14.01.2023 on sheet 6 - 8 under

95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter “GDPR”); In view of the law of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority (hereinafter

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

accordance with Article 9 for purposes of excercising rights, or fulfilling obligations under labour law. Under Chapter 3 § 3 number 3 there is a general

addresses 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

cited, whether natural or legal. 3 See in particular decision 61/2020, point 29 Interlocutory decision 01/2021 - 6/6 FOR THESE REASONS, THE LITIGATION

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

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

recipients are provided access .5 1.3.6 How long is the personal data stored............................................ ......6 1.3.7 In which countries the personal

. .6 1.3.10 Description of CDON's use of the Tool..........................6 1.3.11 Own controls of transfers affected by the judgment Schrems II6 Postal

.....................6 1.3.8 Coop's relationship with Google LCC............................................ ...............6 1.3.9 Ensuring that the processing

data in violation of the Privacy Ordinance, Article 5 (1) (a) and (c), Article 6, Article 12 (1) and Article 13. The Authority requested in the notification

the documents or files containing their personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR and Article 12 of the ePrivacy Directive. However, there is a right to a

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

pursued by Meta pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Lastly, the CJEU noted that the fact that Article 6(1)(a) and Article 9(2)(a) GDPR must be interpreted as

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

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

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

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

least one of the conditions set out in Article 6(1) GDPR? On the topic of non-material damages 4) Does Article 82(1) GDPR have a specific or general preventive

according to Article 9(2)(a) GDPR. On the basis of the information gathered, the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 9 GDPR. As a result

online booking platform, for failing to comply with Article 12(3) GDPR and because Article 6(1)(f) GDPR was not a valid legal basis to publish personal data

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

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

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

a legitimate basis, in breach of Article 6 GDPR. For the violation of Article 6 GDPR, the AEPD fined the controller €6,000. In order to determine the amount

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

DPC decisions, Meta shifted its legal basis from Article 6(1)(b) GDPR (contract) to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest) for most of its processing

follows that the opening clauses of Article 6.2 and 6.3 GDPR for processing operations under Article 6.1(1)(e) GDPR do not cover video surveillance of private

explanatory statement of the law, Article 10 defines the Authority’s competence in compliance with Article 55 GDPR.Article 55 GDPR provides for a restriction

elle sera la plainte sera rejetée. 3.3. La licéité du traitement (article 6, paragraphe 1, du GAV) 72. L'article 6, paragraphe 1, de l'AVG énumère les

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

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

center of Villena (Alicante) and for violating Article 32 GDPR. The General Secretariat must within a period of 6 months, affirm that it has adopted the necessary

set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU)2016/679. III The documentation in the file provides evidence that the defendant violated Article 6.1 f) of the

provided for in Article 5(1)(a), (e) and (f), Article 5(2), Article 24(1) and (2), Article 28(3), Article 30(1)(d) and (f) and Article 32(1) of the General

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

of decisions taken pursuant to paragraph 3 of this article and of decisions taken on the basis of Article 25(6) of the Directive 95/46/EC. 5. When the information

following the mandatory legal requirements to do so, violating Article 6(1) and Article 13 GDPR. A resident has installed, without the authorization of the

Pursuant to Article 83 GDPR in conjunction with Article 4 No. 7 and 8 GDPR, fines for violations of the GDPR pursuant to Article 83(4) to (6) GDPR are not

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

considering that it has violated the provisions of Article 17 of the GDPR and Article 21 of the GDPR and urge GLOBAL CAPITAL GROUP SPAIN, S.L. with NIF

Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in conjunction with article 3.º, n.º 2 of article 4.º, and line b) of n.º 1 of article 6.º, all of Law n.º 58/2019, of

Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/3 SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to the claimant. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of

conformity with Article 5.1. c), Article 6.1., Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. c), Article 13.1. e) and Article 13.2. a) of the DGPS pursuant to Article 101 of

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

infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, infringement typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned Regulation 2016/679. II breached obligation Article 6.1 of the

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

under Article 15(4)(c) and 15(8) of Law No. 4624/19, the national data protection law, in conjunction with Article 58(2) GDPR. According to Article 6 of National

AEPD fined in €2,000 a website for non-GDPR compliant privacy policy, violating Article 13 GDPR. On January 16, 2022 the data subject complaint against

controller €3,940,000 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

Federal Administrative Court. 3. Legal Assessment 3.1. To dismiss the complaint 3.1.1. In accordance with Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the data subject has the right

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

GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, Article 10 GDPR, Article 30 GDPR and Article 34 GDPR, as well as the provision of the PDPA governing processing of personal data

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

then enter a password before gaining access to the computer. 3.3.3 Control of logging 3.3.3.1 Facts The OLVG information security & privacy policy states

conditions of Article 6 (1) of the GDPR. This follows both from Article 21(1)(1)(2) of the GDPR, which refers to Article 6(1)(1)(e) and (f) of the GDPR as a possible

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

lawful basis under Article 6 GDPR. Thus, the DPA assessed whether the processing could have been based on Articles 6(1)(a), (b) and (f) GDPR. It found that

unclear if this national determination of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR is compatible with the GDPR. Many other GDPR provisions were introduced in the sector-specific

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

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)

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

II.3.3. Regarding the scope of Art. 44 ff GDPR: If the following three requirements are met, there is a transfer and Chapter V (Art. 44 ff) GDPR is applicable

purposes, with the exception of Article 28-32, which still applies. Personal data may be processed under Article 6 and Article 9 for the purpose of fulfilling

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

requires both a legal basis under Article 6 of the GDPR, such as compliance with one of the conditions of article 9.2 of the GDPR. The Data controllers must be

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

infringement of Article 32 GDPR. Therefore, the Spanish DPA issued a warning sanction for each violation of Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR. AEPD highlighted

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

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

LPACAP), for the alleged 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

infringement for violation of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, due to lack of legitimacy in the treatment. Article 6 of the GDPR, under the heading "Lawfulness

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

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

and the free circulation of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and

2016 (General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR), in conjunction with Article 3, Article 4(2) and Article 6(1)(b), all of which are applicable to the processing

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

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

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

breached Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for lack of legal basis, Article 21 for lack of considering an objection, Article 13 for lack of information and Article 24 for

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

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

right of freedom of expression and information within the meaning of Article 17(3)(a) GDPR. The controller also stated that there were compelling legitimate

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

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)

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

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

conjunction with Articles 24 and 32 of the GDPR) to choose the appropriate legal basis provided for in Article 6(1) of the GDPR, as well as to be able to demonstrate

parent's request, thus violating Article 15(1) and (4) GDPR as well as the principle of accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR. The complainant requested

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

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)

Supervision: Article 6(1)(f), legitimate interest. For the special category personal data: About diagnosis: Article 6(1)(a), cf. Article 9(2)(a), consent

purpose limitation in accordance with Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter b GDPR (Paal/Pauly/Paal, 3rd edition 2021, GDPR Article 15 Rn. 24). The plaintiff has a right

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

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

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

AEPD found that the Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSC-PSOE) violated Article 21 GDPR due to unsolicited political propaganda sent after the data subject

the same way. 6. Because the Authority has, based on article 15 par. 8 of Law 4624/2019 in combination with article 58 par. 2 of the GDPR, the authority

accordance with article 11 par.1 Law 3471/2006, as applicable, the prior consent of the data subject, without prejudice to paragraph 3 of the same article, as applicable

prove that the implemented TOMs are appropriate under Article 32 GDPR? 4) Does Article 82(3) GDPR allow the controller to be exempt from liability for damages

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

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 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

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

fulfilled. 2.3 On the basis of Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR: The processing of personal data is permissible, inter alia, pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit f DSGVO

and on … she submitted another six (6 ) online applications for the following total links: 1. … 2. … 3. … 4. … 5. … 6. … 7. … 8. … 9. … 10. … 11. … 12. …

2, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3, 59.3

the documents or files containing their personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR and Article 12 of the ePrivacy Directive. However, there is a right to a

their processing, according to with article 21 par. 1 of the GDPR, which is based on article 6 par. 1 item or GDPR. In his reply dated 24-05-2022, the

several paragraphs of Article 83 of the GDPR, as further summarised below. Fining of the ‘gravest infringement’. Article 83(3) GDPR provides that “[i]f a

around the processing of personal data subject to Article 10 GDPR. Pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the Privacy Appeals Board conducted a balancing test

territorial application of the requirements set out in Article 82 of the Data Protection Act is set out in Article 3, paragraph I, of the same Act, which states:

such a fulfilment by Article 12(3) & (4) GDPR. For this reason, an administrative fine of 1000 EUR was imposed (Article 83(5)b GDPR). Share your comments

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

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

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

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

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 6 subsection 1

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

was outdated and was no longer of importance to society. Pursuant to Article 17(1) GDPR, the data subject had requested Google LLC (the controller) to remove

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

comprehensible character, within the meaning of Article 12 of the GDPR, of the information provided for in Article 13 of the Regulation must be assessed. The

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

processing under Article 6 GDPR does not relieve the data processor from their responsibility to fulfil the prerequisites that Article 5(1) GDPR sets out. This

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

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

under Article 5 and 6 GDPR and the safeguards under Article 22 GDPR. If a national court were to find that national law is incompatible with Article 22(2)(b)

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

implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR).As the processing activity does not relate to a period of time during which the GDPR applied and, according to the

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

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

obligations under Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 of GDPR. Article 5 (1) : Ticketmaster has failed to comply with the requirements of GDPR including to process

judgment, is incomprehensible. 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 6.9 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 The contested consideration of the court from para. 6.9 reads as follows: “For

pursuant to Article 6(1)(e) of the GDPR and § 1(2) of the Act of Statistics Denmark and is not obliged to delete it in accordance with the Article 17(3)(b) of

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

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

decision of the Minister is no longer based on Article 17(3) GDPR. Instead the decision is based on Article 6(4) GDPR. However the Minister did not explain well

personal data in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1) GDPR, Article 12(3) GDPR, Article 12(4) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. As such, the DPA issued a

BKR is covered by Article 6, clause 1 (c) of the AVG and not by Article 6, clause 6 (f) of the AVG. The BKR itself refers to Article 6, clause 1 (f) of

not be employee consent [Article 6(1)(a)], due to the nature of the employer-employee relationship.' 3. Rationale 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 According to Articles

they had exercised their right to object to processing as foreseen in Article 21(3) GDPR. The ANSPDCP confirmed that the complainant had exercised the right

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

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

virtue of Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. Indeed, it further is justified that the task carried out in the public interest under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR does not constitute

prevail (Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f GDPR). In this context, Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. c GDPR in conjunction with the PMG and Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f GDPR relevant: The

would 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

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

of Article 4(11). The DPA thus found another violation of Article 6(1)(a). The DPA further held that the controller violated Article 4(11), Article 12(1)

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

accordance with article 11 par.1 Law 3471/2006, as applicable, the prior consent of the data subject, without prejudice to paragraph 3 of the same article, as applicable

minutes 3:11:51 and 3:11:57; The video (2) NUM001, between minutes 3:12:06 and 3:12:28; The video (3) NUM002, between the minutes 3:12:54 and 3:13:04; The

in Article 17 GDPR (cf. Article 17 (3) b GDPR). In that case, the data subject does not have the right to object as referred to in Article 21 GDPR, because

as per Article 5(1)(b), nor legal grounds as per Article 6. In sum, the DPA found that NIF had breached Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (f), Article 6, and Article

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

market participants. Specifically, these are Sections 17(3), 3(5) ApBetrO, 43 AMG, 11(1) sentence 1 no. 3, no. 7 and no. 11 HWG, and Section 14(2) no. 1 BerufsO

processing on the merits in accordance with Article 98 et seq. WOG, to: - on the basis of Article 58.2.c) GDPR and Article 95, §1, 5° WOG to the controller order

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

applies on violations of Article 13 (and 14) GDPR. The DSB held that § 24(6) DSG also applies on violations of Article 13 and 14 GDPR. A controller may therefore

requirements of Art. 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Letter e GDPR and the requirements of Article 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Letter f GDPR do not apply in favor

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

under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The DPA also requires that the company implement internal controls of their credit rating process as per Article 24 GDPR. The

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

obligations in accordance with Article 26 of the GDPR. 1.3. Processing of personal data included in the scope of this methodology 1.3.1. Only processing of personal

proceedings. 3.6.3. There is no dispute between the parties that the credit registration is based on article 4:32 Wft. This article implements Article 8 of Directive

its legal basis under Article 6(1)(f) The Disputes Chamber proceeds to dismiss the complaint in accordance with article 95 , § 1, 3° WOG, giving three motives

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

with the precept was 01.12.2020. 3.3. On 1 December 2020, MustamäeApteek OÜ announced compliance with the precept. 3.4. On December 7, 2020, Mustamäe Apteek

time tracking system, due to a lack of compatibility with Article 7(4) and Article 35(9) of GDPR. KEO PLC decided to upgrade its ERP system, whose upgrade

based on a legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, so that the principle of lawfulness under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR is violated. This is due to the fact

for fraud prevention under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Did the company’s policy breach Article 6 or any other articles of the GDPR? The Garante held that the

12/35 3. Justification 3.1.1. Regarding the purpose limitation findings (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and the lawfulness of processing (Article 6.1 GDPR) 12. In

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

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

personal data. The DPA held that the controller violated Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 15(3) GDPR and held that the controller had to make a decision regarding

Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 GDPR is in accordance and whether there is a conflict of interest within the meaning of. Article 38 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 GDPR applies

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

and held that “A synopsis of the provisions of Article 9(1)(i) of the GDPR in conjunction with Article 3(1)(1), (1a) and (2) of the EpiG shows that the

the other grounds from Article 6(1) of the GDPR do not apply. For example, according to [applicant], Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR does not apply because

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

reviewe the security of the data processed by the processor under Article 28(3)(a) and (h) GDPR. For these reasons, the responsibility of the security incident

cooperation procedure pursuant to Article 56 of the GDPR” (cited note, p. 6). 3. The outcome of the investigation. 3.1. The processing of personal data

fined Med Life SA for the violations of Article 12(4) GDPR and Article 15(3) GDPR. Med Life SA was fined 9,839.6 RON, equivalent to €2,000 EUR. The DPA

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

1, lett. a) and c); 6, par. 1, lett. c) and e), par. 2 and par. 3, lett. b), of the GDPR; as well as art. 2-ter, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Code (see also

location still covered as a "legitimate interest" in Article 6(1)(f) GDPR? How are penalties under GDPR and the Austrian Data Protection Act ("DSG") to be

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

mentions a separate legal basis, points a) and f) of Article 6 (1) of the GDPR. Article 6 (1) of the GDPR point a) of the paragraph was expressly referred

the conditions laid down in Article 7 GDPR. Additionally, in this case, the IP also reiterated the provisions of Article 8 GDPR on conditions applicable to

to Article 11 GDPR, the controller was allowed to request additional information to verify the identity of a data subject pursuant to Article 12(6) GDPR

The timeframe can be extended provided that: the duration is no longer than 3 months (ideally); a justification is given; the person agreed to this or at

controller had infringed Article 6(1) GDPR, in addition to violating the principle of data minimisation in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. Concerning the second issue

violating Article 5(1) GDPR Article 6 (1) GDPR Article 6(4) GDPR Article 9 GDPR Article 14 GDPR Article 30 GDPR Article 35 GDPR and Article 36 GDPR. The fine

limitation under Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR. 1(b) and the obligation (principle) of accountability under Article 5(1)(b). 2 of the GDPR, that is to say

(possible) fraud. This resulted in a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 8 of the Dutch Personal Data Protection

entity has violated article 6 of the GDPR, for carrying out a processing of personal data without legitimacy. II Article 6.1 of the GDPR establishes the assumptions

result of which ING suffered loss. 3.3 This decision and the grounds on which it was based are contested by [the appellant]. 3.4 The Court of Appeal will first

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

compliant with data protection rules, on the basis of Article 6(2) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. Then, the Datatilsynet focused on two specific

Regulation Article 6 No. 1 letter f.6 On the basis of this, we find it clear that Aquateknikk can be fined for violating Article 5 (2) and Article 6 of the

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)

Privacy Ordinance Article 6 no. 1. In Article 6 no. for the processing of personal data. The relevant basis of treatment in this case is Article 6, paragraph

consent Article 6.1.b : Legal basis of contract execution Article 6.1.c : Legal basis of compliance with a legal obligation Article 6.1 .d: Legal basis

be erased and thus also violates Article 17.1(c) AVG. 3.2. With regard to the infringement of Article 6.1 and Article 21.4 of the AVG 29. In its statement

the DPA to issue a referral in order to open an ex officio investigation (Article 63(1) of the Law establishing the Belgian DPA). This referral needs to indicate

in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) " III The documentation in the file offers clear indications that the claimed violated article 6 of the

established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " III The documentation in the file provides evidence that the claimed, violated article 6.1 of the

appeals to that effect legitimate interest (Article 6.1 f) GDPR). 26. In accordance with Article 6.1 f) GDPR and the case law of the Court of Justice of

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

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

meant to refer to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR instead (like a similar case by the Cyprian DPA). Since the DPA only referred to Article 6(1) GDPR, and did not specify

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

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

protection found in Article 5 of the GDPR, and fulfill one of the lawful bases for processing as set out in Article 6 of the GDPR. As the complainants

ANSPDCP found that Estee Lauder Romania SRL violated Article 6, 7 and 9 GDPR and imposed a fine of EUR 3.000. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision

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

established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " IV The documentation in the file provides evidence that the claimed, violated article 6.1 of the

months after the request was made. According to Article 12(3) GDPR the response has to be the latest within 3 months. The DPA considered that it had no competence

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

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

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

accordance with Article L. 6113-7 of the French Public Health Code and the decree of 26 December 2018 comply with Articles 6, 9(3) and 25 GDPR? To reach the

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)

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

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

on legitimate interests according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and that Ziggo had to comply with Article 6(4)(d) GDPR. The Court found that DFW had a legitimate

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

entity has violated article 6 of the GDPR, for carrying out a processing of personal data without legitimacy. II Article 6.1 of the GDPR establishes the assumptions

data is a form of processing as referred to in the GDPR (article 4 sub 2 GDPR). Article 6 of the GDPR provides that the processing of personal data is only

question in accordance with Article 6 (1). Travel cards have also referred to Article 17 (1) (b) of the Data Protection Regulation. 3, letter b, according to

the danger concepts in Article 6 Paragraph 1 Letter e SGK and Article 6 Paragraph 1 Letter d SGK in conjunction with (now) Article 24 Paragraph 1 Letter

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

hand can not verify its legalitytraining. 3.6.4. In view of what was mentioned in paragraphs 3.6.1. - 3.6.3. above, the DefendantThe perpetrator was obliged

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

the provisions of article 6 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 14/20 Article 4 of the same GDPR defines "processing"

of the provisions as set out in Article 95 § 2 and Article 98 of the ICA. They are also informed, pursuant to Article 99 of the ICA, of the time limits

implementing the ePrivacy Directive and Articles 6(1)(a) and 7 GDPR, in the lights of Article 4(11) and Recital 32 GDPR. Following this report, the GBA issued a

Art 6 AVG - ex-contractual processing plea 6: the right to object - Article 21(1) AVG plea 7: Article 12(3) TFEU - no infringement plea 8: Article 20 AVG-Right

required by Article 6 GDPR. In doing so, the defendant was guilty of a breach of Article 6 of the GDPR. This breach is combined with a breach of Article 5.1.a)

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)

of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance with the provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Agency Spanish

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

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

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

directly on the basis of the GDPR, not the register assessed on the basis of Article 30(1) of the GDPR. II.3. Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR 49. Above, the Disputes

(DPO) under Article 37(7) GDPR, and of its obligation to ensure that its DPO does not have any conflict of interests under Article 38(6) GDPR. In 2018, the

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

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

controller violated Article 6(1)(f) GDPR when accessing the employee's email account and emails. Further, the Datatilsynet breached Article 21 GDPR since the controller

A76539030, for a infringement of article 28.3.g) of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.4 b) of the C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd

infringed Article 7 (3) of the DSGVO. In addition, the lack of transparency (§ 6 para 3 KSchG) also resulted from the infringement of Article 12 in conjunction

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

processing is based on consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, the consent must meet the requirements of, among others, Article 7 GDPR. The DPA observed deficiencies

answered in accordance with the requirements of Article 12 GDPR and within the time limit set in Article 12(3) GDPR. As the complainant continued to receive marketing

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

processing (Article 4, point 11, Article 6 (1) in conjunction with Article 7 GDPR) 121. With regard to the lawfulness of the processing (art. 6 GDPR), the defendant

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

processing is based on Article 6(1)(e) of the GDPR. This data processing also complies with the due care requirements set by the GDPR. There is therefore

interest" as a basis for treatment. 5.2. Article 6 (1) (f) of the Privacy Regulation - "legitimate interest" Article 6 (1) (f) requires that the collection

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

procedure. II Article 6.1 of the RGPD, establishes the cases that allow to consider The processing of personal data is lawful. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es

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

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

obligation under Article 37(7) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller to comply with his obligations under Article 13(1)(b) GDPR and Article 37(7) GDPR and to publish

basis the data are processed in accordance with Article 6 GDPR. This constitutes a breach of Article 6 GDPR. The data subject indicates that they had not

of the data controller in accordance with Article 6.1(f) and recital 47 of the Regulation' (footnote cit., p. 3); e. in response to the requests for access

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 of

absence of consent under Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR, a balance of interests according to Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR is required. The legitimate interests pursued by the plaintiff

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

established in article 6 of theRegulation (EU) 2016/679. "IIIThe documentation in the file provides evidence that theclaimed, violated article 6.1 of the RGPD

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

Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/3 SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to the claimant. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of

exceptions from those contained in art. 3. 4 GDPR. In this sense, those provided for in art. 34.3 a) and b). C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd

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

processor, Vamavi Phone SL, had violated Article 48(1) LGT, Article 21 GDPR in link with Article 23 LOPDGDD and Article 28 GDPR by making a commercial call on behalf

Data in the External Referral Register. (…)” 3 Review 3.1 In an introductory application pursuant to Article 46 of the Personal Data Protection Act (Wbp)

articles 12.5 and 15.3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in the sections 3 and 4 of article 13 of this organic law. " FIFTH: Article 15 of the RGPD provides

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,

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

lawful bases of Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) in particular, stating that the actions of the respondents were in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR because the complainant's

violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/6 FIFTH: The aforementioned

95/46/EC) on the same date (see Article 94 GDPR). That the initiating petition in this case dates from 22 May 2018 and that Article 48, paragraph 10 of the (Dutch)

incorrect applies Article 12.3 of the AVG. However, this is not correct. 33. Article 12.3 of the GDPR reads (in its relevant parts): ''Art. 12.3 The controller

the basis of Article 9 (1) of the Data Protection Ordinance [1]. 2, letter h, cf. the Data Protection Act [2] § 7, para. 3, and Article 6, para. 1, letter

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

subjects and the obligations and rights of the controller'), as per Article 28(3) GDPR, was lacking. Additionally, the DPA highlighted that such contract

of the duty of information as per article 13 GDPR. The DPA imposed thus a fine of €1000 for violating Article 13 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

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

information pursuant to Article 15 of the GDPR as alleged by the respondent - was alleged. However, Article 14 (1) to (4) of the GDPR do not apply if the complainant

fact that the processing of the controller relied on Article (6)(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(c) GDPR as legal basis affects the holding of the DPA since

fulfilled. The school breaches Article 6(1)(b) in combination with Article 6(4) and Article 6(1) Articles 24 and 25 GDPR Furthermore, as the school continued

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

established in article 6 of theRegulation (EU) 2016/679. "IIIThe documentation in the file provides evidence that theclaimed, violated article 6.1 of the RGPD

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

which that article 38, section 6, of the GDPR is registered, it should be noted that, according to article 39, paragraph 1, letter b) of the GDPR, the protection

NIF J10460640 , for aviolation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, in relation towith article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of

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

2019 Pursuant to article 58, second paragraph, opening words and article 83, fifth paragraph, of the GDPR, read in in connection with article 14, third paragraph

treatment established in article 6 of theRegulation (EU) 2016/679. ”C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 6 6/13IVThe documentation

for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd

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

data is inaccurate or incomplete. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/6 3. The cancellation will lead to the blocking of the

point (e) of Article 6(1) of the GDPR. 48 If a data subject has objected to the data processing, it follows from Article 21(1) of the GDPR that compelling

should have applied Article 35 GDPR. In light of the above, the Italian DPA used its corrective powers under Article 58(2)(c) and 83 GDPR and fined the controller

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

interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The data subject was heard on this statement and filed a submission, arguing that Article 6(1)(f) GDPR does not apply

established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. ” IV The documentation in the file offers evidence that the claimed, violated article 6.1 of the RGPD

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

even allowed to process the data under Article 10 GDPR. The Court rejected an argument from Brein that article 6:162 BW could be used besides Articles 32

that Article 36(1) GDPR provides for a duty to consult if two conditions are met. First, a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 GDPR must