Search results

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

Wolff/Brink DS-GVO Article 64 margin numbers 19-20.1 (35th Edition 1.2.2021). Caspar in Kühling, Buchner, GDPR Article 64, margin number 24 (C.H. Beck 2020,

provided for in Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or, as the case may be, Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, and consent is withdrawn according to Article 7(3) GDPR, data must be

obligation under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. Such information is not transparent and does not facilitate the exercise of rights. Article 13(1)(c) GDPR must therefore

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

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

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

binding decision under Article 66 GDPR, at the request of the Hamburg SA which adopted provisional measures under Article 66(1) GDPR, based on its consideration

additional benefit of Article 14(1)(d) GDPR may be questionable, if one agrees that Article 14(1)(c) (see commentary on Article 13(1)(c) GDPR) already requires

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.H. Beck

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

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 72 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Nguyen in Gola, DS-GVO, Article 72 GDPR, margin numbers 1-2 (C.H. Beck 2018

decisions issued in dispute resolution procedures under Article 65(1) GDPR. Article 65(5) GDPR also obliges the EDPB to publish such decisions on its website

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

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

required under the GDPR (e.g. from a security perspective under Article 32 GDPR or as a means of data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) can get confused

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

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

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

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

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

related decisions in Category:Article 76 GDPR Dix, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 76 GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Docksey

other DPAs concerned. The BCR Lead the submits, following Article 64(1) GDPR and Article 64(4) GDPR, a draft decision to the EDPB. The EDPB, in turn, issues

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

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

(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)

the establishment of SAs are set out in Article 51(1) and 52 GDPR, Article 54(1)(a) GDPR repeats that these should be legislated for through a Member State's

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

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

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

will not have to submit another request for erasure under Article 17(1)(b) GDPR. Article 7(4) GDPR provides some useful guidance on the factors to be taken

recitals for Article 97 GDPR. Article 97 GDPR imposes a "comprehensive reporting obligation" upon the Commission. The first paragraph of Article 97 GDPR sets out

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

DS-GVO BDSG, Article 59 GDPR, margin number 4 (C.H. Beck 2020). Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 59 GDPR, margin number 7 (C.H. Beck 2020

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

of Article 15(1)(c) GDPR, which permits in certain cases that the information provided is limited to "categories of recipient[s]": Article 15 GDPR is a

in Category:Article 75 GDPR Dix, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 75 GDPR, margin number 1 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition). Case C-614/10, Commission

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

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

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

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

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

Regulation (GDPR), Article 84 GDPR, p. 1198 (Oxford University Press 2020). Gola, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 84, margin numbers 1-2 (C.H. Beck 2018

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

Regulation (GDPR), Article 82 GDPR, p. 1162, 1164, 1175. (Oxford University Press 2020); Quaas, in BeckOK DatenschutzR, Article 82 GDPR, margin number 3 (C.H. Beck

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

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

163 GDPR). Tosoni in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 98 GDPR, p. 1315 (Oxford University Press 2020). Case C- 528/

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

exercise on their behalf all rights foreseen under Articles 77 and 78 GDPR and Article 20 of L. 4624/2019. The mandate shall be given with a specific written

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

BDSG, Article 92 GDPR, margin number 8 (C.H. Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). Herbst in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 92 GDPR, margin number 13 (C.H. Beck

other remedies. CJEU: The CJEU has clarified in C-132/21 that "Article 77(1), Article 78(1) and Article 79(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 [...] must be interpreted

subjects - which would be counterproductive. Article 11 GDPR is meant to address this matter. Under Article 11(1) GDPR, when a processing operation does not or

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

accordance with Article 58(1) GDPR. Article 90 GDPR was drafted with a view to regulate potential conflicts between the application of the GDPR on the one hand

the competent supervisory authority of such a breach. Article 34(1) GDPR differs from Article 33 GDPR. Instead of having to notify the supervisor authority

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

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

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)

the information society service(s)." According to Article 4(25) GDPR, which in turn refers to Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535, an "information society

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

DatenschutzR, Article 80 GDPR, margin number 10 (C.H. Beck 2021, 36th edition). Bergt in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 80 GDPR, margin number 5 (C.H. Beck

proceedings under Article 79(1) GDPR where no subjective rights under the GDPR are concerned. For example, a data subject cannot use Article 79(1) GDPR to bring

Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023), p 1090. CJEU, Case C‑28/08, European

the basis of (i) its legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) or (ii) the public interest (Article 6(1)(e) GDPR). Hence, data subjects may find themselves

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)

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

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

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)

under Article 13 should not be too long. Article 12 GDPR may be limited by Union or national Law in accordance with Article 23 GDPR. Article 12(1) GDPR

Recital 167 GDPR and Article 291 TFEU, the aim of implementing acts is to “ensure uniform conditions for implementing” the GDPR. In its GDPR Certification

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

to Article 57 GDPR and for their powers please refer to Article 58 GDPR. See Recital 122 GDPR. In this respect, reference should be made to Case C‑288/12

categories of data listed under Article 9(1) GDPR. There have been conflicting arguments as to whether Article 22(1) GDPR lays down a right or a general

According to the final paragraph in Article 49(1) GDPR, when none of the derogations described above (Article 49(1)(a-g) GDPR) is applicable, transfers to third

Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke und Eifert. See for example CJEU in C-364/14 Schrems I and C-311/18 Schrems II. See Article 1(1) of Commission

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

DatenschutzR, Article 78 GDPR, margin number 8 (C.H. Beck 2020, 36th edition); Körffer in Paal, Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 78 GDPR, margin number 2, C.H. (C.H. Beck

agreement on joint responsibility as required under Article 26(1) of the GDPR. Article 33(1) GDPR outlines that controllers (as defined above) have an

the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 16 (available here) referring to Article 1(1)(b) Directive (EU) 2015/1535

systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale. Article 37(1)(b) GDPR and Article 37(1)(c) GDPR also extends the requirement to appoint a DPO to controllers

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

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

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

decisions in Category:Article 26 GDPR Petri, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Datenschutzrecht, Article 26 GDPR, margin number 12 (C.H. Beck 2019).

Datenschutzrecht, Article 61 GDPR, margin number 7 (C.H. Beck 2019, 1st ed.) Polenz, in Simitis, Hornung, Spiecker, Datenschutzrecht, Article 61 GDPR, margin number

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

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

up. Indeed, the wording of Article 40(1) establishes that they “shall encourage” this (emphasis added). Article 40(1) GDPR clarifies that codes of conduct

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

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

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%

Articles 5(1)(a), 12(1) and 13(1)(c) GDPR within three months, to refer not only to information provided on data processed pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, but

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

infringement of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. After recalling that each concerned DPA could submit a request for mutual assistance under Article 61 GDPR and thereby

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

third-party action (1.). On the complainant's side, his general right of personality (Article 2.1 in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the Basic Law) in

there. The content of article 5.1 letter c) is considered to be allegedly affected. GDPR that provides: “Personal data will be: c) adequate, relevant and

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

***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 6.1 and another of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 letters a) and b) of the RGPD, a fine of €1,500 (€1

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

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

in the same article 83. 111. Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20, paragraph III, of the Data Protection Act, provides: 1. Each supervisory

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

the data is not obtained from the interested party (article 14). Article 13 of the GDPR states: "1. When personal data relating to him or her is obtained

it should have under Article 60 GDPR - Article 61(8) GDPR applied, which meant that the urgent need to act under Article 66(1) GDPR was presumed to be met

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

assigned to the control authorities in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

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

Agency sanction to D. A.A.A., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, with a fine of €300 (three

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

6(1)(b) GDPR, Articles 5(1)(a), 12(1) and 13(1)(c) have been infringed.” Issue 4 (Additional Issue) – Whether Facebook Infringed the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR

for which Meta Ireland indicated reliance upon Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, Articles 5(1)(a), 12(1) and 13(1)(c) have been infringed”. Issue 4 (Additional Issue)

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

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

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

PS_00003_2020 1. Claim of C.C.C. 2. Transfer of claim to PLAY ORENES, S.L. 3. Answer to the request of D.D.D. 4. Admission for processing to C.C.C. 5. E / 02186/2019

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)

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

violation of data minimisation, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. No fines can be imposed against the controller and Article 83(5) GDPR can therefore not be imposed.

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

an infringement of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, and for the purposes of prescription, by article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD

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

accordance is basedC / Jorge Juan 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/7with Article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or Article 9, paragraph 2, letter

established in the articles 15 to 22 of the GDPR, regulated in article 64.1 of the LOPDGDD, according to the which: "1. When the procedure refers exclusively

accordance is based with Article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or Article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), and this is not based on another legal basis; c) the interested

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

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

to the administrative process as prescribed by the art. 114.1.c) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common for Public Administrations

administrative procedure as prescribed by the art. 114.1.c) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd

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

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

determines the purposes and means of the processing". According to Article 26(1) of the GDPR, "where two or more controllers jointly determine the purposes

functions assigned to the control authorities in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection

mail to CLÍNICAS VIVANTA, specifically, the one located at C / *** ADDRESS. 1 DE *** LOCALITY. 1, notarial requirement by the representation of Mr. B.B.B

assigned to the control authorities in the article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU) C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD and Article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

the treatment Article 6 of the GDPR details in its section 1 the cases in which the processing of third-party data is considered lawful: “1. Processing will

legitimate basis a violation of GDPR? The Spanish DPA considered that the processing of personal data was in breach of Article 6(1) GDPR, as the worker had processed

regulations of data. III Data minimization Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD states the following: "1. The personal data will be: (…) c) adequate, relevant and limited to

company result in a breach of Article 37 GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) found that Conseguridad SL had violated Article 37(1)(b) GDPR by not having designated

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

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

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

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

requirements established in article 21 and do not constitute Serious offense". Pursuant to the provisions of article 39.1.c) of the LSSI, minor offenses

B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infraction of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of €1,000 (one thousand euros)

described violates article 6.1. of the RGPD and is subsumable in the sanctioning type of the article 83.5.a, of the RGPD. IV Article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD

treatment contained in article 5 of the GDPR. We will highlight the principle of data minimization contained in article 5.1.c) of the GDPR that provides that

accordance is based with Article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or Article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), and this is not based on another legal basis; c) the interested

has been received. Does the GDPR allow the data controller to ignore a request for erasure? The AEPD found that Article 12 GDPR does not allow the data controller

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

company, Iberdrola Clientes, S.A.U for infringing Article 21 GDPR, Article 48(1)(b) LGT, and Article 23(4) LOPDGDD. The initial proposed fine was €10000

according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, are a Personal data and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In the article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

as the right to data portability; c) when the treatment is based on article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or the Article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), the existence

accordance with article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), and this is not based on another legal basis; c) the interested

accordance with article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), and this is not based on another legal basis; C/ Jorge Juan, 6

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned

OF OWNERS R.R.R., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of €2000. SECOND: NOTIFY

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

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

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

clinical history and file administrative of the mother and minor daughter C.C.C. in connection with assistance of pregnancy, childbirth and subsequent clinical

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

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

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

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

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)

NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of Article 13 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of 2000 euros (TWO THOUSAND euro). C/ Jorge Juan

treatment is based in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) and this is not based on another legal basis; C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 –

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

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

this purchase contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR). Therefore, the processing is compatible with the GDPR. In the Netherlands, as of 1 July 2018 a passenger who

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

subjects required by Article 12.2. of the GDPR. 8.1.3. As for the breach of the principle of minimization (article 5.1 c) of the GDPR) 8.1.3.1. In view of the

AND COMPAÑIA SRC, with NIF C28328508, for an infringement of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and for a second infringement of article 32 of the RGPD, typified

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

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

provisions of section 2 of article 56 in relation to section 1 f) of article 57, both of the RGPD; and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

aforementioned B.B.B., with the collaboration of C.C.C. has installed a camera on the facade of the aforementioned C.C.C.. The camera is focused on the shared-use

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

that was reliably notified in dated 06/15/22, signing the reception: Dª C.C.C.. ***NIF.2. In said notification, recalled its obligation to interact electronically

by the defendant can only be Article 6 (1) sentence 1 lit e) DSGVO (see b) or Article 6 (1) sentence 1 lit f) DSGVO (see c), the requirements of which,

publication of the press release of 17 June 2020 infringed Article 54(2) GDPR and Article 48(1) and Article 64(3) WOG. This press release described that the DPA

has not breached Article 6 No. 1 or Article 9 and there is no legal basis to impose an infringement fee in accordance with Article 83 no. 1. Subsidiarily

the data subject must delete the personal data in accordance with Article 17(1)(c) GDPR unless it is able to demonstrate that there are "compelling and legitimate

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

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

the provisions of article 6.1. of the GDPR, therefore could involve the commission of an offense classified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, which provides the

violating Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. The DPA of Berlin fined Deutsche Wohnen SE for violating Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, because

violated the GDPR and the consent given through such a banner cannot be considered a valid consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 4(11) GDPR. Further

violation of article 6.1) typified in the Article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT as instructor D. B.B.B. and as secretary to Ms. C.C.C., indicating

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

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

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned

portability; (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) or Article 9(2)(b); or (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a)

controller with €10,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €25,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR. There is a pattern in the Spanish DPA resolutions

e7141c720c53441c2483c; has_js=1; _gid=GA1.2.1837808855.1597415922; _gat=1 Upgrade-Insecure-Requests 1 If-None-Match" 1597405902-1" Cache-Control max-age=0”

Protection besanction BBB , with NIF *** NIF.1 , for a violation of Article 58.1 of the GDPR,typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, with a warning sanction

Sections 1004 analogously, Section 823 (1) and (2) BGB in conjunction with Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 17 GDPR. Claims under data protection law could

obligation imposed on public authorities under Article 37(1) GDPR. This obligation is also within Article 34(1) and (3) of the Spanish data protection law

period ”. In this sense, article 77.1 c) and 2, 4 and 5 of the LOPGDD, indicates: 1. "The regime established in this article shall apply to the treatment

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. Each supervisory authority

motor index of search the following urls: 1. *** URL.1 2. *** URL.2 3. *** URL.3 SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of the LOPDGDD, which has provided

responding to an email from C.C.C. instead of her alone..." - Sent by D.C.C. to D.D.D. on 28/11/2018: "I confirm that this C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es

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

to in Article 5(1) LRN, under which the controller did not fall in. Therefore, the controller breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR, in conjunction

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

Manifestation of the general right of personality, Article 2 Paragraph 1 GG in conjunction with Article 1 Paragraph 1 GG, or from Section 823 Paragraph 2 BGB in

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

B.B. with NIF *** NIF.1, with a fine of € 1,000 (thousand euros) for the violation of article 21 of the LSSI, typified in article 38.4.d) of the LSSI. SEVENTH:

infringement of Article 48.1.b) of the Law LGT, classified as "minor" in Article 78.11) of the aforementioned Law LGT.2, NAME B.B.B. as instructor and C.C.C. as secretary

Protection Officer shall instruct the controller in accordance with Article 58 (2) (c) of the General Data Protection Regulation to comply with the applicant's

infringement of article 6.1 of the RGPD, sanctioned in accordance with the provisions in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 2. APPOINT C.C.C. Instructor

carried out in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) and the processing is not based on another legal basis; C/ Jorge Juan 6www.aepd.es28001

treatment Letter a) and c) of article 5.1 of the GDPR advocates: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 14/28 "1. Personal data will be:

treatment of in accordance with Article 6 (1) point (a) or Article 9 (2) point a), and it is not based on another legal basis; C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es

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

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

the AEPD's order to provide all necessary information as required in Article 58(1) GDPR. Following a complaint against the mobile network operator Xfera Móviles

RRR , with NIF *** NIF.1 , for a violation of Article 5.1.f) of theRGPD, in accordance with Articles 83.5 and 58.2.d) of the RGPD.C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd

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

B67543355, for a violation of Article 48.1.b) of the LGT, typified in Article 78.11 of the LGT (minor offense), a fine of € 1,500 (one thousand five hundred

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

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

well as the right to portability of the data; (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) the existence of the right to withdraw

investigation granted to the control authorities in article 57.1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). Thus, dated 12/04/20, an information request is addressed

Spanish City Council with a warning of an infringement of Article 5(1)(c) pursuant to Article 83(5) over installed surveillance cameras in the City Hall

application must be dismissed. D E C I D E : ---------- Article 1: The intervention of the PDU - What to choose is allowed. Article 2: The request of the company

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

analogous to Article 18 (1)(a) GDPR the Court held that § 12 of the German Registration Law explicitly exludes the application of Article 18 (1)(a) GDPR. According

Policy on their website (Article 13 GDPR) and for the absence of a reject button on the second layer of their Cookie Policy (Article 22(2) LSSI). The claimant

to Articles 57(1) and 58(2) GDPR for the processing of personal data without the consent of the data subject, as foreseen in Article 6 GDPR. Firstly, the

NIF *** NIF.1 in 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

RESOLVES: FIRST: TO IMPOSE C.C.C., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a penalty

infringement of article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR and 72.1.a) of the LOPDGDD. 2-That in application of article 58.2.c) of

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

treatment is based in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) and this is not based on another legal basis; c) the data subject objects to the processing

Art. 82 Para. 1, Para. 2, Art. 5 Para. 1 lit. a Var. 1, Article 6 paragraph 1 subparagraph. 1 lit. 1, Article 6 paragraph 1 subparagraph. 1 lit. a, Art.

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

According to Article 72.1 LOPDGDD, the violation of data processing principles under Article 5 GDPR was considered very serious. Considering Article 25(1) GDPR

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

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

(1) GDPR? The AEPD found that publishing the image of the data subject without his consent was a violation of Article 6 (1) GDPR, and decided to fine the

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

violation of the general right of personality under Article 1.1, Article 2.1 of the Basic Law (Article 7, Article 8 of the Basic Law) was to be taken into account

givingthe access.C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 2 2/6THIRD: On October 30, 2019, in accordance with article 65.4 ofOrganic Law

for the violation of Article 6 GDPR and € 4 000 for the violation of article 13, under the power conferred by Article 83(5) GDPR. Share your comments here

with the GDPR. Especially, if the installation of surveillance camera is contrary to the data minimisation principle, under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. First,

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72.1 m), under the rubric “Infractions considered very grave ”provides: "1. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.5 of Regulation

of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD

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

consequent infringement of the data minimisation principle related, as per Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The decision is the consequence of a complaint submitted by a Spanish

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

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

Regulation) Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 5, Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph f, Article 17(1)(a), (c) and (d), Article 17(3)(a), Article 21(1) Judgments

would constitute a breach of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. First, the AEPD recalled that, in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, private surveillance cameras

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

[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

pursuant to Article 47(1) and 48.1 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October, on the limitation of the infringement of article 6.1 of the RGPD typified in article 83.5 a)

rules on administrative procedures'. II Articles 1 and 2.1 of the RGPD provide as follows: "Article 1. 1. This Regulation lays down the rules on the protection

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 as

A-65559296, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid

provided in article 43.1 of said Law. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 12/12 II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative

RESOLVES:FIRST: IMPOSE BBB , with NIF *** NIF.1 , for a violation of the article5.1.d) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a penalty of € 3,000

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

the necessity of data processing within the meaning of Article 5, Article 6(1) and Article 9(1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/679 that is subject to only

for the alleged infringement 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

regulated in article 6 of the GDPR. The assumptions that allow the processing of personal data to be considered lawful listed in article 6.1 of the GDPR: 1. Treatment

"Principles of Data Protection", article 4.1 of the LOPDGDD determines: "4. Data accuracy. 1. In accordance with article 5.1.d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

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

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

provided in article43.1 of said Law.C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 11 11/11IIArticle 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative

Telefónica Móviles España, S.A.U. with a fine of €75,000 for violating Article 6(1) GDPR. The complainant had five telephone lines contracted with Telefónica

referred to in the Article 9, paragraph 1, or personal data regarding convictions and offenses penalties referred to in article 10, or c) large-scale systematic

repealed, see Article 65 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861. b) The requirements of Article 17 letter d GDPR, to which Article 53 paragraph 1 of Regulation

Schleswig -Holstein, C-210/16, EU: C: 2018: 388, para 29, and of 10.7.2018, Jehovah's Witnesses Cate, C-25/17, EU: C: 2018: 551, para 65). 68 The Court has

finepublic, as indicated in article 77.1. c) and 2. 4. 5. and 6. of the LOPDDGG: “ 1. Theregime established in this article will be applicable to the treatments

the exceptional circumstances of Article 23 (1) e GDPR in conjunction with Sections 32c (1) No. 1, 32b (1) sentence 1 No 1 a, sentence 2, § 32 paragraph 2

processing pursuant to Article 21, Paragraph 1 and there is no justified reason for the processing. According to Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Data Protection

of articles 38.1, 38.3, 39.1 a) and 39.1 b) of the GDPR; - to issue an injunction against Company A to comply with Article 38.1 of the GDPR, within four

secrecy (Section 1 (1) DSG) as follows The appeal is dismissed as unfounded. Legal basis: Article 51(1), Article 57(1)(f) and Article 77(1) of Regulation

violation of Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that were clear indications that the defendant infringed Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR, principles relating

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

building, which was considered a data breach and therefore a violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. The Police Force of Navarra (Spain) reported to the AEPD the fact

that Wind Tre had violated the following articles of the GDPR: Articles 5(1), 5(2), 6(1)(a), 7, 12(1), 12(2), 24 and 25. It subsequently fined Wind Tre 16

processing of in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) (a), and this is not based on any other legal basis; (c) the data subject opposes the

plaintiff’s personal data on a member’s bulletin board, in violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The Spanish DPA received a complaint in November 2019 against Caja

authorities an infringement of Article 5 (1) (d) GDPR? The AEPD agreed to impose a penalty for infringement of Article 5 (1) (d) for lack of accuracy in

series of measures pre-contractual, in accordance with article 6.1b) RGPD or pursuant to article 6.1 a) RGPD. It also states that the breach would be attributable

infringement of Article 6.1 a) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, and a fine of EUR 60 000 is proposed. PROVEN FACTS 1.- The facts set

EDPB had to solve the conflict among the European DPAs under Article 65(1)(a) GDPR. First, the EDPB stated that the end of the storage of personal data in

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

communications, as per Article 21(1) of the Spanish Law on Information Society Services (LSSI), as well as for the infringement of Article 13 of the GDPR. The decision

minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and €500 for a violation of the information requirements under Article 13 GDPR). Additionally, the AEPD

requirements of Article 13 of the Regulation. C. On the breach relating to cookies 69. Article 82 of the Data Protection Act (Article 32.II in a wording

infringement of the law, the serious in Article 72(1)(a) of the above-mentioned Act. SECOND: To appoint B.B.B. as instructor and C.C.C. as secretary, indicating that

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 was

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 was

breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Was the publication of the census copies a breach of the data integrity and confidentiality principle under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR

of the GDPR: art. 5.1 a, 12.1, 13, 14, 6, 7, 5.1.c in conjunction with 25, 5.2, 28.3, 31, 37 and 38 AVG. 63. With regard to Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR, the defendant

contrary to the plaintiff's view - does not follow from Art. 82 (1) GDPR. Art. 82 (1) GDPR would probably be directly applicable in national law. The defendant

the basis of Article 58, paragraph 2, point b) GDPR and Article 100, §1, 5 ° WOG to be reprimanded for the infringement of Article 25 (1) GDPR; b. on the

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

exercising their rights in bad faith. The AEPD brought forward Article 12(5) GDPR, as well as Article 7 of the Spanish Civil Code, that states that rights must

the transmitted data (see point II.1.3 or II.1.3.1) at least in combination, personal data according to Art. 4 Z 1 DSGVO. For the lack of an appropriate

enshrined in Article 25 GDPR. Additionally, the AEPD concluded that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, noting that although the GDPR does not

an end to the administrative procedure according to article 114.1.c) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations

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

protocols. This therefore breached Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR. The initial sanction for infringing Article 5(1)(f) was a fine of €5000 and the

supply data, without the consent of the data subject, a breach of Article 6 (1) GDPR? The Spanish DPA held that the processing of data relating to electricity

for Intervention Teams (Article 65 paragraph 1 of the SUWI Act in conjunction with Article 1.1 bb and Article 5.a.1 paragraph 1 of the SUWI Decree). 4.10

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

basis of Article 58(2)(b) of the GDPR because its processing activities infringed Articles 5(1)(a)(b) and (c), 6(1), 12(1)-(5), 15(1) and 17(1) of the GDPR

for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT as instructor C.C.C. and, as secretary, D.D.D

(see “1.2.4- As regards the complaint according to which the defendant hadless time than the complainant to prepare his arguments ”).1.1.1. Place1.1.1.1.-

Confidentiality, the information is accessible only by authorized personnel. c: B.B.B. and by C.C.C .. The integrity of the information, the information is correct

information duty included in Article 13 GDPR. Is this a violation of Article 13 GDPR? The AEPD held that there had been a violation of Article 13. According to the

case; (…)” IV Infringement of Article 6.1.a) of the GDPR Article 5, Principles relating to processing, of the RGPD states: "1. Personal data shall be: (a)

having knowledge of the following: 1.1 In general, marketing actions can be classified attending to several criteria. 1.1.1. Campaigns managed directly by

Protection RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE C.C.C., with NIF *** NIF.1, for a violation of article 5.1.c), typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned rule, a

provisions of this Article And Article 34, Communication of a breach of data security personal to the interested party, establishes that: "1. Where it is likely

of Article 6(1)(e) GDPR -public interest and exercise of official authority vested in it, which falls within the exception of Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. It

3.2. [applicant sub 1] et al bases the removal requests on Article 17 paragraph 1, under a, c and d, and Article 21 paragraph 1 of the General Data Protection

Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the first stipulation and section 2.2 of the second stipulation of the aforementioned contract state "FIRST.- OBJECT: 1.1 The purpose

appear in the name of C.C.C. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/14 2. That, thanks to friendly talks with C.C.C., the complainant

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

as the right to data portability; c) when the treatment is based on article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or the Article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), the existence

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

commerce (hereinafter LSSI), as provided in article 43.1 of said Law. II Article 85 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public

provisions of article 65.4 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights (hereinafter, LOPDGDD). C / Jorge

themselves.” Article 65 paragraph 1 GDPR reads:Article 65 paragraph one GDPR reads: “Art. 65 GDPR Dispute resolution by the committee (1) In order to ensure

rely on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR for processing personal data” (3.50). However, when issuing its Binding Decision, with regard to Article 6(1)(b) GDPR as a lawful

policy, contravene Articles 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR? The AEPD found that GRUP BC S.L violated Article 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR. Share your comments here

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

Paragraph 1 Z1 B-VG Art 133 Paragraph 4 GDPR Art4 GDPR Art51 GDPR Art56 GDPR Art60 GDPR Art65 GDPR Art77 VwGVG §28 Paragraph 1 VwGVG §31 Paragraph 1 B-VG Art

pursuant to Article 13(1)(c)?....................82 Conclusion – Preliminary Issue: What information must be provided pursuant to Article 13(1)(c)? ......

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

ascertained, that pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code and Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Regulation of the Guarantor no. 1/2019, this measure should

principleof data minimization within the meaning of Article 5 (1) point c) GDPR.3. Breaches of the GDPR and the complainant's requests68. The Disputes Chamber

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

Court found that customers’ order data is health data and fall within Article 9(1) GDPR. Amazon does not collect health data stricto sensu but it can draw

from Article 17 of the GDPR. C. On the breach of the obligation to ensure the security of personal data 50. According to Article 32(1) of the GDPR: "Taking

the processing of personal data of Article 23(1) of Regulation 2018/1725, the EDPS recalled that, under Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725, processing

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

under the GDPR. 14. By Article 57(1) of the GDPR, it is the Commissioner'task to monitor and enforce the application of the GDPR. 15. By Article 58(2)(d)of

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

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

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

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

proportionate, and dissuasive per Article 83(1) GDPR, and so the EDPB adopted a binding resolution in accordance with Article 65 GDPR to settle the dispute. The

d'autres personnes physiques (article 6, paragraphe 1, point c), de la les personnes physiques (article 6, paragraphe 1, point d), de l'AVG). Dans un souci

advertising purposes on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR, to be effective one week after notification

interference with his fundamental rights under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) GG, Article 13 GG. Furthermore, in his objection, he stated

authorities for the purposes set out in Article 1(1) shall not be processed for purposes other than those set out in Article 1(1) unless such processing is authorised

subject, and their (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 6(1)(b) or Article 6(1)(c) of the GDPR Article 9(2)(a), the existence

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

companies Menzis and VGZ € 50.000 for insufficient security measures under Article 32 GDPR. Translated summary by the AP (The Netherlands): In 2018, the Authority

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

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

confidentiality according to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and the necessity to implement technical and organizational safeguards from Article 32 GDPR. Accordingly, only

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

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

of Section 1 Paragraph 1 and 2 DSG, Article 5 Letters a and c GDPR as well as Article 6 Paragraph 1 Letters c and f GDPR, as well as Article 1 Paragraph

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

artikel 100, §1, 2° WOG de buitenvervolgingstelling bevelen, of de klacht seponeren overeenkomstig artikel 95, §1, 1° of artikel 100, §1, 1° WOG (naargelang

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

found that the right to a copy under Article 15(3) GDPR is independent from the right to access under Article 15(1) GDPR and is to be construed extensively

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

in the tax information portals had in any case violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR, because the large-scale and permanent publication of personal

data subject’s consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, which in turn meets the conditions for consent laid out in Article 7 GDPR. The AEPD highlighted that this

Agency sanction QUALITY for an infringement of Article 58.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, with a fine of €20,000.00. This proposed resolution

legal bases of contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR), legal obligation (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR) and legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) and determined that

This investigation showed that Transavia did not respect Article 32(1) and Article 32(2) GDPR by not taking the appropriate technical and organizational

for the alleged violation of article 6.1) typified in the Article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. SECOND: APPOINT D. C.C.C. as instructor. and as secretary

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

data as part of the credit check is based on Article 6 Paragraph 1b GDPR and Article 6 Paragraph 1f GDPR. We basically have a legitimate interest in carrying

by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, since there have been violations of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. The defendant also breached

deadline set out in Article 33(1) GDPR. 6. Datatilsynet’s Assessment 6.1. Findings of an Infringement of Article 33(1) GDPR 6.1.1. Introduction As noted

theRundfunk etc. , C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, EU: C: 2003: 294, paragraph 65, and of 1 May 2014, GoogleSpain and Googie. C-131/12, EU: C: 2014: 317, paragraph

found that GDPR does not prevent the claimant from exercising their basic right. In this regard the court referred to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR to highlight

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

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

violations of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR and of Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. In order

B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infraction of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of €1,500 (one thousand five hundred

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

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

This behaviour was in violation of Article 31 GDPR. Thirdly, Company B was found to be in violation of Article 32(1) GDPR. This provision imposes an obligation

October 2022. 18See Art. 60(6) GDPR. 3 4. Legal Background 4.1. Scope of Application of the GDPR Under Article 2(1) GDPR, the Regulation: “[…] applies to

to injunctive relief from § 29 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 2 BDSG old version, but from § 29 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 1 BDSG old version, although the "basic

section 2 of article 8 when required to do so by the authority or its agents, for the fulfillment of the purposes set forth in section 1 of article 16. You

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

with the criteria established in Article 83(2)(b) GDPR: negligent character of the infringement, and Article 83(2)(g) GDPR: categories of personal data affected

of the article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, considered very serious for the purposes of prescription in article 72.1.i) of

treatment is based in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a) and this is not based on another legal basis; c) the data subject objects to the processing

lawfulness: (1) the consent of the 10 complainant (article 6.1 a) of the GDPR combined with article 7 of the GDPR), (2) article 6.1 c) of the GDPR in that the

Finnish DPA found a retail chain to have breached Article 5(1)(e) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR for its lengthy storage of purchase behaviour

investigative actions. In light of provisions (Article 4 (15) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR) the vaccination of a person against Covid-19 implies the

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

portability; (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or on Article 9, (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a),

Vodafone processed personal data without a legal basis according to Article 6(1) GDPR. The complainant has been a victim of identity theft with the data

health data, recorded in copies Article 6 (1) of the GDPR and, in the case of health data, Article 9 of the GDPR. Article 1 (1); (3) did not provide clear

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

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

the UK-GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. c. A declaration that by processing the claimant’s personal data the defendant has breached Article 5(1) of

compliance with the data minimisation principle laid down in Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR. 33. In addition, personal data concerning health will be processed

claimed party, for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: The aforementioned initiation agreement

the OWNERS COMMUNITY ***ADDRESS.1, with CIF ***CIF.1, for a infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, with a fine

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

the alleged violation of article 5.1.f), typified in 83.5 GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT B.B.B. as instructor. and, as secretary, to C.C.C., indicating that any of

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

accordance with article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or article Article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), and this is not based on another legal basis; c) the interest

exemptions set out in Article 14(5) GDPR apply in this case, the DPA found a violation of the principle of transparency in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and the obligations

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

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 21.1 of the LSSI, typified in the Article 38.4.d) of the LSSI. SIXTH: The aforementioned start-up

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. Once the Initiation Agreement was notified

accordance with Article 56 paragraph 1 of the Regulation. 23. Applying the cooperation and consistency mechanism provided for in Chapter VII of the GDPR, the CNIL

violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD and Article 83.4, respectively, of the GDPR. SECOND:

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

each category of data (Article 15.1.c), where possible, the storage period or the criteria used to determine that period (Article 15.1.d), the source of the

of Innsbruck held that the right to compensation in accordance with article 82(1) GDPR is subject to two cumulative conditions. They must be met by the data

BayPrG Art. 4 para. 1 VwGO § 123 (1) sentence 2, § 146, § 152, § 154 (2) ZPO § 920 Basic Law Article 5(1) GKG § 47, § 52 (2), § 53 (2) No. 1 Keywords: Press

legge del 18 maggio 2021, n. 65 “Misure urgenti relative all'emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19” (di seguito “d. l. 65/2021”) che hanno previsto specifiche

controller violated Article 5(1)(a),(b) and (c) read in conjunction with Article 5(2) and 6 GDPR and imposed a fine of approximately €1,000. This amounts

failed to comply with Articles 5 (1)(f) and 32(1) and (2) of the UK GDPR. Article 5 (1)(f) and 32(1) and (2) of the UK GDPR 1546. The Commissioner finds that

private capacity should be considered recipients as per Article 4(9) GDPR and Article 15(1)(c) GDPR. A data subject bought a TV and a wall mount from an electronics

violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in the article 83.5.a) of the RGPD. SECOND: APPOINT B.B.B. Instructor. and Secretary to C.C.C., indicating

with Art. 2 para. 1, Art. 1 para. 1 GG, Art. 17 para. 1 lit. d) DSGVO, because her personal data is stored according to Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f. DSGVO had

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

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

for a violation of the Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, a fine of 10,000 € (ten thousand euros). C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

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

Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law and Article 12 of the Basic Law outweighs the interests of the plaintiff from Articles 2 (1) and 1 (1) of the Basic Law. 65The freedom

in accordance with Article 57 Paragraph 1 Letter h in conjunction with Article 58 Paragraph 1 Letter b and Paragraph 2 Letter a GDPR in conjunction with

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE D.C.C.C., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5, a) of the GDPR, a fine of €3,000

violation of article 83.5 a) RGPD and 72.1b) of the LOPDGDD and € 50,000 for the violation of article 83.5 b) and 74 c) of the LOPDGDD. C / Jorge Juan

purposes of prescription in article 72.1.b) and c) of the LOPDGDD. In accordance with the provisions of articles 72.1 and 74.1 of the LOPDGDD, the Infractions

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

the general public. It fined the publisher €50,000 for violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The data subject was the victim of a crime that was being covered

of Articles 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 6.1.c), 6.3, 9.2.i), 12.1, 13.1.c), 13.2.a), 13.2.d), 13.2.e), 30.1.a) and 30.1.d), 35.1 and 35.7 of the GDPR 9. The applicant

imposed a fine of €65,000 on Lursoft for breaching Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(c) and 6(1) GDPR. Lursoft has since appealed the decision, meaning the

documentation. The Spanish DPA concluded that there was a breach of Article 5(1)(f) and 32(1) of the GDPR. The access to the third parties’ personal data constituted

the claimant on 1 January 2018 which are not taken into account in box 1 or box 2 are deductible in box 3. To this end, Article 5.3(1) of the Personal

With regard to limitation periods, article 72.1.k) of the LOPDGDD, establishes: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679

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 its report

Apparently, according to the applicant (C.C.C.), that camera has been installed by the mayor of *** LOCALIDAD.1 because he is the tenant of that property

indicated in article 9, paragraph 1, or personal data related to convictions and criminal offenses referred to in article 10 ”. On the other hand, article 31 of

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

amended: Article 3,, Article 4, number 11,, Article 7,, Article 51, paragraph one,, Article 12, paragraph 3,, Article 17,, Article 19,, Article 57, paragraph

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

fact, paragraph c) of paragraph 1 of article 4 of Directive EC/95/46, of October 24, 1995, as well as aa fnea c) of paragraph 3 of article 4 of Law 67/98

provisions of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and article 32 of the GDPR, violations classified in article 83.5 of the GDPR and article 83.4 of the GDPR respectively

violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and a fine of €100,000 for the violation of Article 37 GDPR. The DPA issued a reprimand for the violations of Article 5(1)(e)

purpose constituted a breach of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. Secondly, the CNIL indicated that the controller breached Article 13 GDPR by failing to include the right

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

requirements of article 24 and 32, paragraph 1, AVG and further elaborated in article32, paragraph2, preamble, FISHOrdinancesBIO standards5.1.1,5.1.1.1and5.1.2.1.

constitute a violation of article 6 of the RGPD. IV Article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD states that “depending on what is established in the Article 83.5 of Regulation

particular regard to Article 5(2) of the GDPR which established the principle of accountability in respect of a data controller. Article 5(1) provides, in short

online store had violated Article 6(1) GDPR. The AEPD also held that the online store had violated its obligation under Article 13 GDPR to provide data subjects

Section 28 (1) sentence 1 no .) - a recourse to Art. 6 DSGVO (Plath DSGVO/BDSG, 3rd edition 2018 para. 13 mwN). According to Article 6 Paragraph 1 lit f. GDPR

According to Article 94 of the GDPR "references to the repealed directive must be understood as references to the [GDPR]". 84. Under Article 4, paragraph

data, violating Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(1)(f) and Article 5(2), and ignoring a data subject's erasure request in breach of Article 17 GDPR. The controller

conclusion by interpreting Article 15(1)(c) GDPR in light of the principles of fairness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR) as well as the provision

affected" within the meaning of Art. 15 para. 1 GDPR. The right to information under Article 15.1 of the GDPR is also not transferred to the insolvency administrator

the claimed, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: On 10/15/21, it is verified that no

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

lies', the conditions in Article 66 (1) GDPR for taking urgent measures are met. Since the conditions for Article 66(1) GDPR were met, the court did not

background of Article 22 GDPR. The Court found that the controller’s algorithmic process in itself is an automated decision under Article 22(1) GDPR, based on

controller was in breach of Article 38(1) GDPR at the time of the investigation. Regarding the breach of Article 39(1)(b) GDPR, the CNPD concurred with the

referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall be confirmed, deviating from Article 64 paragraph 3 and Article 65 paragraph 2, within two weeks by a

those involved (Article 12.1, Article 13.1 and 13.2, Article 14.1 and 14.2, Article 5.2, Article 24.1, and Article 25.1 GDPR) 57 II.4.1. Position of the

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

sanction for both Article 5(1)(f) and 32 GDPR in this case would constitute a double violation of the GDPR, when in fact Article 5(1)(f) GDPR is merely a concretion

them.” SAW Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD establishes the following: “Article 5 Principles relating to treatment: 1. The personal

the Strijp-S housing complex in Eindhoven. It's agreed 1 Facts 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 that [plaintiff] directly to PME Investment Services

under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Furthermore, the controller was responsible for implementing appropriate security measures according to Article 32(1)(b) GDPR

would be based 5. 1, a) GDPR, Article 6, Article 12.1 GDPR and Article 14.1 a) GDPR. 67. Moreover, a controller, in this case defendant 1, cannot suffice

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

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

enforceable, in accordance with the provisions of Article Article 98.1.b) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public Administrations

according to Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The AEPD stated that, the video surveillance by the controller does not constitute an infringement of Article 5(1)(c) because

claimed party, for violation of article 6.1 of the GDPR. SAW Classification of the infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

were initiated, based on Article 63 and Article 64 LPACAP and an infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR typified in Article 83(5) GDPR. After the proceedings

basis of article 100.1, 5 ° LCA, for violation of Article 15.1 of the GDPR attached to Articles 12.3 and 13.1.c) and for violation of Article 6.1.e) of the

” III Violation of article 5.1 f) of the GDPR Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, Principles relating to processing, states the following: "1. The personal data

you consider pertinent, in accordance with article 89.2 of the LPACAP. 926-170223 C.C.C. INSPECTOR/INSTRUCTOR C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

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

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

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

as well as the right to data portability; c) when the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or the Article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), the existence of

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

advertising violated Article 6(1) GDPR. However, this violation alone was not sufficient to justify a claim for damages. Pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, a claim for

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

legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR and in violation of transparency obligations in the privacy policy under Article 5(1)(a) and 13 GDPR. The DPA in the

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

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

minimisation in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The AEPD fined the controller an additional €1,000 for failing to provide adequate signage in compliance with Article 13 GDPR

there is no violation of articles 5.1(c), 5.1(d), 5.1(e) and 5.1(f). Articles 5.1(c), (d) and (f), 5.2, 12, 16, 24, 25, 30.1, 31, 32, 38.3 and 38.6 of the AVG