Search results

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

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

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

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

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

1049/2001. More specific provisions include Articles 64(5)(b), 65(5), 70(3) and 70(4) GDPR, which regulate the publication of opinions and resolutions of the

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

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

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

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)

such as profiling (see also Article 4(4) GDPR); Restriction (marking for limited further processing, see also Article 4(3) GDPR), such as deactivation of

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

dispute resolution under Article 65(3)(1) GDPR and for consistency decisions in the urgency procedure under Article 66(4) GDPR is necessary, as these are

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

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

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

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

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

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

in force for more than 4 years after the GDPR’s entrance into force. Responding to requests regarding the applicability of the GDPR in Slovenia, the IP issued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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)

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

performance. Article 7 GDPR regulates the "conditions for consent". It specifies the definition of consent set out in Article 4(11) GDPR and, by integrating

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

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

accordance with Article 98'. → You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 98 GDPR The CJEU has yet to rule on Article 98 GDPR. Nonetheless, the

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

disclosed to per Article 4(9) GDPR. Article 19 does not establish any specific time requirement for notification. However, since the purpose of Article 19 is to

burdens. This reading of Article 31 GDPR is supported by the language of Article 83(4)(a) GDPR which categorises Article 31 GDPR as an 'obligation' of the

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

62(7) GDPR, the reference to the EDPB is mandatory. The authority addressed under Article 66(1)-(2) GDPR is the CSA within the meaning of Article 4(22) GDPR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 25 GDPR, p. 577 (Oxford University Press 2020). EDPB, 'Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection

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

please refer to Article 19 GDPR. If the controller declines to rectify the data, they must provide reasons for their decision (Article 12(4) GDPR). The data

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

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

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

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

meaning of Article 4(7) and (8) GDPR can be liable for compensation. A claim for damages first requires an infringement of the GDPR. Article 82 GDPR does not

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

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

Member State in relation to damage referred to in Article 62(4) GDPR. According to Article 62(7) GDPR, if the lead SA does not invite the SA to take part

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

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

right to data protection. Article 51 GDPR is closely connected to Article 4(21) (definition of SA), Article 52 (independence), Article 53 (General conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

meaning Recital 86 GDPR). However, Article 34 GDPR does not provide a specific deadline of 72 hours as is the case in Article 33 GDPR. Instead, timelines

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

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

complaint under Article 77(1) GDPR on behalf of the data subject and to represent the them before all supervisory authorities (“SA”) (Article 4(21) GDPR). Secondly

further discussed, in Article 4(1) GDPR. Any information that relates to an identified or identifiable natural person falls under the GDPR, this also includes

listed in Article 83(4), (5) and (6) GDPR. This specifically refers to violations of Articles 8, 11, 25 to 39, 41(4), 42, 43 of the GDPR (paragraph 4), Articles

on Article 36(4), it is still disputed whether the outcome of the procedure rather resembles that of Article 58(3)(a) GDPR or Article 58(3)(b) GDPR. See

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 53 GDPR, p. 888 (Oxford University Press 2020). Boehm, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 54 GDPR, margin numbers

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

controller (as defined under Article 4(7) GDPR) and a processor (as defined under Article 4(8) GDPR). As noted above, Article 79 GDPR imposes a two-stage cumulative

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

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) GDPR)

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

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

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

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

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

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

that purpose. Article 89(4) GDPR makes it clear that the derogations to the GDPR are only available for processing specified in Article 89 GDPR, and not for

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

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

about the scope of the term 'personal data' under Article 4(1) GDPR. Non-EU citizens can rely on the GDPR as its application is generally independent of nationality

provisions such as Article 30(4) for the record of processing or Article 40(11) for the register of approved codes of conduct, Article 26 does not explicitly

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)

can carry out a notification in phases under Article 33(4) GDPR (see below). Under Article 33(3)(b) GDPR, the supervisory authority must be given the contact

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

in Category:Article 3 GDPR EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 4 (available here)

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)

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

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

GDPR are Article 4(7) GDPR (definition of controller), Article 4(8) GDPR (definition of processor), Article 4(16) GDPR (definition of main establishment)

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

refusal to take action on a data subject’s request (Article 12(4)). The first sentence of Article 20(3) GDPR clarifies that the exercise of the right to data

incompatible with the office. Article 52(4) GDPR and Article 52(6) GDPR establish the framework for SAs financial governance. Article 52(4) GDPR stipulates that SAs

of such processing (see Article 5(1)(b) GDPR), the requirement to have a legitimate basis laid down by law (see Article 6(1) GDPR), the right to access and

the fine, the criteria specified in the same article 83. 111. Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20, paragraph III, of the Data Protection

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

objected to its processing pursuant to Article 21(1) of the GDPR (Article 17(1)(a), (c)(1) and (d) of the GDPR). A request for erasure would therefore

context of Articles 40 and 41 GDPR, in particular from Article 40 Paragraph 4 in conjunction with Article 41 Paragraph 2 lit. c) GDPR, namely further that a monitoring

administrative fine for the infringement of Article 6(1) or Article 6(1)(b) GDPR meet the requirements of Article 4(24) GDPR. 504. The EDPB decides that the relevant

personal data concerning him". In this sense, Article 6.1 of the RGPD establishes that "in accordance with Article 4.11 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, consent

asked whether the joint control of data in accordance with Article 4(7) and Article 26(1) GDPR must be interpreted 'exclusively' as involving deliberately

"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

the national law and thus falls under one of the legal grounds in Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. The President of the Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) stated

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

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

Protection 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

according to the introduction of Article 4, this only applies "where this Directive does not provide otherwise". Under Article 8(6) of the Directive, for distance

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

basis under Article 6 GDPR to collect and process vehicle registration numbers. The legal basis is a statutory obligation prescribed by Article 229 of the

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

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

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

website controller qualifies as controller (Article 4(7) GDPR) and Google LLC as processor (Article 4(8) GDPR) for data processing in connection with Google

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

defendant within the meaning of Article 4 of the GDPR. The defendant is therefore a controller within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR. b. 44 The Senate is convinced

communication service. Therefore, TikTok had to obtain valid consent (Article 4(11) GDPR) from users before using the identifiers. The DPA stated that it should

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

objection for data processing under Article 21 GDPR and the principle of liability under Article 2(4) GDPR and Article 24 GDPR. The complainant, the data subject

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

provided for in Article 56(1), read in conjunction with Article 56(2), read in conjunction with Article 56(3), read in conjunction with Article 56(4), read in

invoked the excessiveness of the request under Article 12(5) GDPR alleging that the data subject uses Article 15 GDPR only to verify the validity of the premium

that a controller is allowed to reject a request to access under Article 12(5)(b) GDPR as "excessive" if the request's sole purpose is to verify the validity

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

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

protection within the meaning of Article 45 of the GDPR and without appropriate safeguards within the meaning of Article 46 of the GDPR. Furthermore, the plaintiff

by the alleged violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, Article 25 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: On

authentication via a third service provider cannot constitute a breach of Article 6 of the GDPR when it implies that the personal data of the data subjects are not

applied Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, according to which the data subject could have voluntarily disclosed their health data defined in Article 4(15) GDPR to the

way of a finding under article 15 of the GDR instead of the provisions of article 15 of the GDR. 36, § 4 and § 5 as well as Article 38, § 1 of the Law of

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

had fulfilled its obligation to provide information pursuant to Article 12(3) and Article 4(7) of the Basic Law (Voriger SuchbegriffDSGVONächster Suchbegriff)

[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

power conferred by Article 58(2)(d) and (f) and Article 83(3) and (5) GDPR, imposed to Fastweb multiple corrective measures and a fine of € 4.501.868. Share

carried out in compliance with the GDPR. Therefore, the DPA determined that the controller violated Article 24(1) GDPR by using this safety mechanism. The

accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. Ten DPAs (AT, DE, FI, FR, IT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SE) raised objections, in accordance with Article 60(4) GDPR, to the Draft

year 2005-2006, 29 708, no. 19 (p. 523) Article 4:32 The obligation from this article is taken over from Article 52 of the Wfd. Under Section 14(2) of the

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

defendant pursuant to Article 100(1) °WOG, since that first defendant does not appear to be a data controller in accordance with Article 4(7) AVG for the facts

case fell under the household exception found in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. According to this provision, the GDPR does not apply to the processing of personal data

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

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

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

accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. Ten DPAs (AT, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL, NO, SE) raised objections, in accordance with Article 60(4) GDPR, to the Draft

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 decision

was no reason for erasure under Article 17 GDPR as the processing was still necessary and lawful under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. In June 2020, the data subject

security measures: Article 32 of the GDPR and Article 3 of Law no. 506/2004. The latter is the transposition of the E-Privacy Directive's Article 4. (2) This is

the inspected with section 4 of chapter 4 of the GDPR. 3. […] the inspectorate [is active in the field of transport] […]. 4. The controlled has approximately

23Investigation report, page 34, point 4.4.8.1. 24Investigation report, page 34, point 4.4.8.2.1.1 25Investigation report, page 34, point 4.4.8.2.2.1 _______________

processing of personal data within the meaning of Article 4 GDPR and is it justified on the basis of Article 6 GDPR? Can the controller raise the argument that

foundation was responsible for violating Article 33 GDPR, and issued it with a warning pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. The AEPD did not find the former Secretary

readers (the article in question is still posted on the internet at the following link: http://politis.com.cy/article/astinomiko-kapsoni-se70chroni-tk)

provisions of Article 12, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4. In other cases where registered complaints applies to Article 12, paragraph 1. 9 Article 12 (4) of the Privacy

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

Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR, is processed and stored here by the defendant as the person responsible in accordance with Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR. According to Art. 4 No.

SANTE) has submitted to the EDPB a request for consultation under Art. 70 GDPR concerning a document on “Questions and Answers on the interplay between

the data subject's consent in Article 4(11), and the basic principle of legality, reasonableness and transparency in Article 5(1)(a). Furthermore, Datatilsynet

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

available or consulting" of "data relating to health" (Article 2-septies, paragraph 8; Article 2-ter, paragraph 4, letter b) of the Code). The Regulation also provides

83(4) and (5) GDPR) 7.36 The infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR falls within Article 83(5)(a) GDPR, whereas Article 32 falls within Article 83(4)(a)

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

protection, the DSGVO had come into force during the proceedings. Pursuant to Article 69 (4) of the DSG, proceedings pending before the ordinary courts under the

the performance of a contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) and for legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Article 6(1)(b) GDPR In its original draft decision

The Court finds this process compliant with Article 15 GDPR, on the right of access, and Article 23 GDPR on restrictions to the rights of data subject

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

with NIF A65445033, for a violation of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of 70,000 euros (seventy thousand euro). Likewise

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

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

DE SA’s objection on Article 33(3) GDPR fails to meet the requirements set out in Article 4(24) GDPR Infringement of Article 34 GDPR on the communication

future incoming communications" (note cit., p. 6). 1.4. On 10 September 2019, pursuant to Article 166, paragraph 5, of the Code, the Office notified the

Privacy Ordinance, Article 4, No. 2 and the Act on processing of personal data of 15 June 2018 no. 38 (Personal Data Act) § 1. Article 6 (1) of the Privacy

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

accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. Ten DPAs (AT, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL, NO, SE) raised objections, in accordance with Article 60(4) GDPR, to the Draft

information and the protection of personal data under Article 86 GDPR. However, the restriction under its Article 5(1) of the Polish Act on Access to Public Information

of him or her, cf. 2. tölul. Article 3 Act no. 90/2018 and point 1. Article 4 of the Regulation. According to para. Article 4 Act no. 90/2018, the Act and

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

even pseudonymised data (Art. 4 Para. 5 GDPR) from the term personal data are recorded in accordance with Art. 4 Para. 1 GDPR. It is undeniable that the MB

( *** POSITION 1) for an infraction of Article 6.1.f) of the GDPR, in accordance with Article 83.5 of the GDPR ”. In the face of it, no allegations have

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

necessary and proportional. Hence, it appeared the Court referred to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Moreover, it must also be clear, for both the employee and the client

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

under Article 77(1) GDPR and subsequently the right of judicial remedy against the supervisory authority under Article 78(1) GDPR. Article 79 (1) GDPR provides

default (Art. 25 GDPR), integrity and confidentiality (Art. 5.1.f GDPR), as well as security ofprocessing(Art. 32GDPR)......101 B.4.4. - Additional alleged

"lifting". (4.2) Exclusions (4.2.1) GDPR and AO restrictions 145 According to Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the person concerned (Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR) has a right

none of the exceptions in Article 82 of the Data Protection Act were applicable, and Apple had to obtain consent (Article 4(11) GDPR) before using the identifiers

the definitions of the legal concepts that the RGPD indicates in article 4: Article 4 GDPR. Definitions For the purposes of this Regulation, the following

publication of the judgment breach the GDPR? The AEPD held that the respondent’s actions violated the GDPR Article 5(1)(a) requirement that processing must

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

down in Article 28 of the GDPR. The Commission wonders about such a qualification in the light of the definition of a subcontractor given in Article 4.8 of

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

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 Hessian

2019, GDPR Art. 37, para. 1; Döpfler , EU-GDPR and BDSG, 2nd edition 2020, GDPR Art. 37, marginal 1; Paal / Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, 2nd ed. 2018, GDPR Art.

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

the type of data) are: Article 9(2)(h) GDPR (necessary for the purposes of preventive or occupational medicine); Article 9(2)(i) GDPR (for reasons of public

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

under Article Article 82 (1) GDPR. The second defendant, as data protection officer, is not a "controller" within the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR. Only

principles to the GDPR;
 
 (b) The effect (if any) of the remaining claims – Article 5(1)(f) GDPR (the data security principle), the Article 8 claim and

the GDPR. According to the defendant, this partner is thus not processor within the meaning of Article 4 (8) GDPR. Consequently, Article 28 (3) GDPR does

name is personal data under Article 4(1) GDPR. Additionally, the Head of the Municipality maintained that according to Article 11 of the Polish Labour Code

Compétence de la Chambre de Résolution des Litiges (Article 2 AVG ; Article 4 WOG) 55. Conformément à l'article 2, paragraphe 1, de l'AVG, le règlement s'applique

anonymized. Therefore, the DPA found a violation of Article 5(1)(a), (b), (c), and (e) and Article 12(1) GDPR. For the reasons above, the DPA imposed a fine

free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/W (GDPR), as well as article 70 sec. 1 and 2 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Data -

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

information. According to Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the GDPR, the term “processing” includes any “According to Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the GDPR, the term of processing

data had taken place, meaning GDPR obligations did not apply. Are these magnetic cards personal data within Article 4(1) GDPR? If so, did the MCP infringe

several violations of the GDPR. Firstly, the USL had not documented its processing activities as required by Article 30 GDPR, despite the two years between

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

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

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

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

fulfill the requirements of Article 28 GDPR. The DPA concluded that the controller failed to comply with Article 28(1)(3) and (9) GDPR by not concluding a written

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

employer violated their Article 15 GDPR obligations as a data controller. The plaintiff requested information under Article 15 GDPR from its former employer

and the right to freedom of information. The court also refers to Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, stressing that this provision does not in itself authorise data

information", Article 15(1)(g) GDPR. Furthermore, the controller had violated Article 21(4) GDPR by not providing the information listed in Article 14 GDPR in its

controller for the purposes of Article 4(7) GDPR, and Company A was the processor for the purposes of Article 4(8) GDPR. The DPA found that both Companies

account, inter alia, the criteria referred to in Article 6(4)(a) to (e) of the DPO (Article 6(4) DPO). Article 6 (4) of the DPA therefore permits further processing

12(5)(1) GDPR as an independent claim. The broad concept of personal data underlying the GDPR (Article 4(1) GDPR), the wording and purpose of Article 15(3)(1)

extremes. 11.4 In addition, processing of personal data is only lawful where it is demonstrated to have a ‘legal basis’. Article 6 of the GDPR sets out what

violation of article 32, paragraph 1, GDPR and article 13, paragraph 1, sub, GDPR BZ should end these violations as soon as possible. article58, paragraph2

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

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

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

in line with the principle of lawfulness in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as none of the conditions of Article 6 GDPR were satisfied. The data disclosed in the land

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

without references to names. Moreover, (2) it included health data (Article 4(15) GDPR) as the newsletters were send to patients of the respected medical

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

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

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

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

disregarded the provisions of Article 5-1 e) of the GDPR. C. On the breach of the obligation to inform people 65. Article 13 of the GDPR requires the data controller

inappropriate under Article 24 and 32 GDPR. In the context of damages, a combined reading of Article 5, 24, 32 and Recital 74 GDPR, evidenced to the court

found no violation of Article 5(1)(c)(e) GDPR and a prevailing legitimate interest of the defendant according to Article 6(f) GDPR. It must be noted that

conformity with the data subject’s rights of information under Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR, the hospital should firstly make clear what the legal basis

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

of the Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, the sanction that would correspond would be a fine for an amount of 70,000 euros

data breach (Article 32 GDPR). Does the plaintiff have a right to compensation according to Article 82(1) GDPR and does Article 82(3) GDPR stipulate a reversal

is only authorised where it is freely given, specific and informed (Article 4(11) GDPR). As there is no evidence of individuals consenting to third party

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

consent by the data subject in accordance with Article 6 juncto Article 7 of the Regulation? 4° Must Article 17.2 of the General Data Protection Regulation

the RGPD must be observed. In turn, pursuant to article 83. 2.k GDPR, the circumstances described in article 76 LOPDGDD may also be taken into consideration

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

personal data, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation. Louis Companies is responsible for processing (Article 4(7) of the Regulation). Data subjects

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

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

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

the 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), the existence of the

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

of the Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, the sanction that would correspond would be a fine for an amount of 70,000 euros

within the meaning of section 3(4) DPA and Article 4(2) GDPR. 1.6. Marriott has not admitted liability for breach of the GDPR. However, for the reasons set

they are processed (article 5.1 e) of the GDPR). 8.1.4. As for breaches of Articles 5.2. and 24 of the GDPR 88. Article 24.1 of the GDPR which covers Chapter

point 4.7. 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

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

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

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)

whether the processing is automatic or not, cf. Number 4 Article 3 of the Act and point 2. Article 4 of the Regulation. This case concerns the collection

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

justification (Article 21.2 AVG and Article 21.3 AVG). The controller has within the period of one month after receipt of the complainant's request (Article 12.3

assessment against the GDPR A. Identification of the controllers involved (Article 4.7 GDPR) 24. In accordance with Article 4.7 GDPR, it must be the controller

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

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

party. Therefore, the controller breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 7 GDPR, and Article 130 of the Italian privacy code, since the

video surveillance, could be based on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, and complied with Articles 3, 24 and 74 ZVOP-1 and Article 38 of the Slovenian Constitution. During

completely determined by it. This already follows from Article 1.3, Article 20.3 and Article 93.1 No. 4a of the Basic Law. According to these, the commitment

should prevail? 4.3. In addition to article 6: 162 DCC, the General Data Protection Regulation of 27 April 2016 (EU 2016/679, hereinafter: GDPR) applies. The

infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, the sanction that would correspond would be a fine for an amount of 70,000 euros

assessed whether the case fell within the scope of the GDPR. It mentioned that according to Article 4(2) GDPR "processing" means " means any operation or set

paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 in accordance with this article is effective, proportionate and dissuasive in each individual case. 72. According to Article 83(2) of

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

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

the above, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 39 of the law. According to paragraph 2 Article 4 of the law, cf. point c, paragraph 2 Article 2 of the regulation, the

data of [the appellant]. 4.3. In view of the provisions of 4.2. alone, the new overview does not meet the requirements of Article 35, second paragraph, of

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

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

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

processing principles under Article 5 GDPR? Did an exception to the prohibition of processing of health data under Article 9(2) GDPR apply? The Icelandic DPA

did not prove that the MAC addresses constituted personal data (cf Article 4(1) GDPR), because it did not sufficiently prove that the controller would be

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

paragraph 3, all of article 35, and paragraph a) of paragraph 4 of article 83, all GDPR, with a fine of up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of annual turnover

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

found the following infringements. Enel Energia violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR where it failed to carry out an adequate assessment of

2016/679, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 4 of the Act, and thereby the authority of the Data Protection Authority, cf. Paragraph 1 Article 39 of the Act, covers the

whether the processing is automatic or not, cf. Number 4 Article 3 of the Act and point 2. Article 4 of the Regulation. As stated earlier, the resolution

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

data associated with this incident (Article 4(7) of the GDPR). 5. "Personal data" is defined by Article 4(1) of the GDPR to mean: "any information relating

meaning of Article 4. The Dispute Resolution Chamber notes that consulting personal data does constitute processing within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the

violates Article 5(1), Article 6(1) and Article 12(1) GDPR. Therefore the DE-HH SA adopted, on 10 May 2021, provisional measures under Article 66(1) GDPR, based

Hague October 4, 2022, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2022:2100, para. 3.1-3.13. 4 Conclusion 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Exhibit 4 to the introductory

(potential violation of Articles4.11, 6.1 a) and 7.1 GDPR): ▪ The GDPR requires a “statement or unequivocal active act” (Article 4.11 GDPR), which means that all

Section 4 (1) GDPR declares that the GDPR is applicable in addition to the GDPR, without referring to the exceptions in Article 2 (2), (3) and (4) of the

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

association, a disregard of article 5 of the GDPR. 7. It follows that the arguments based on disregard for this article of the GDPR can only be dismissed. On

This is inferred from Article 6.1.f) of the RGPD in connection with Article 21.3 and Recitals 47, 69 and 70 of the GDPR, Article 21 of the RGPD regulates

DPA under Article 78 of the GDPR. The court dismissed the complaint. It found that the plaintiff is precluded from having recourse to the GDPR in connection

compliance with the minimum wage of its employees acts in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR if it observes the limits of necessity and data economy. The plaintiff

the requirements of Article 17 GDPR fulfilled and would the defendant require to delete the school record? Article 17 (1) (a) GDPR grants a right to delete

equipment? - Question 4: Are Articles 2(f) and 5(3) of Directive 2002/58EC, read in conjunction with Article 4(11), Article 95 and Recital 4 of Regulation (EU)

loss of control of personal data and a breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Article 32(2) GDPR. The first complainant is a company that is engaged

understood within the meaning of consent as defined in Article 4(11) GDPR. As explained by recital 42 GDPR, "[c]onsent should not be regarded as freely given

any other legal ground, in breach of Article 5(1)(b) and Article 6(1) read in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. The DPA fined the controller €525,000

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

consent provided for in Article 4.10) of the GDPR, as well as the conditions applicable to consent provided for in Article 7 of the GDPR. 25 Guidelines 5/2020

organizational measures pursuant to Article 32 GDPR. The court held that the controller violated Article 32(1) GDPR, which requires appropriate technical

sanctioning procedure against VODAFONE ESPAÑA S.A.U. for infringing Article 6(1) GDPR. Vodafone, recognising its responsibility, made an early payment of

all of his data under Article 15 GDPR. He also requested to have his data transmitted in a portable format under Article 20 GDPR. The controller responded

retains a personal character, within the meaning of Article 4, 1) of the GDPR. 42. It follows that the GDPR is applicable and that, in view of what has been

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 for

meaning of Article 4(15) GDPR. The DSB founds that the GDPR does not apply due to the household exception provided for in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. Pursuant

provided for in Article 15(1) GDPR, which was kept by the Higher Administrative Court. The Court denied the request. Does Article 15 GDPR apply to hand written

provided for in Article 9 of the GDPR or Article 51 of the ZZLD. 30 Under Article 27 of the ZMVR, data recorded by the police pursuant to Article 68 of that

should comply with the criteria set out in Article 6. (4) General Regulations. The application of Article 6 (4) of the General Regulation to a change in

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

paragraph of Article 2, ZKme-1 (point a) of the third paragraph of Article 5, the first paragraph of Article 139, the second paragraph of Article 143 of the

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

was not signed in accordance with the provisions of Article 43(1). It also follows from Article 76(1)(4) of the Royal Decree of April 18, 2017 that failure

interpreted Article 5.3 of the Directive Privacy and electronic communications using the GDPR, specifically on the basis of Article 4.11, Article 6.1.a GDPR (consent

so Article 48 GDPR does not apply. Moreover, the Court considered that none of the conditions referred to in Article 49(1) and Article 49(2) GDPR is fulfilled

personal data under Article 15(1) GDPR is limited by the law. Limitations result from Article 13(4) GDPR and Article 23(1)(e) GDPR in conjunction with

(“the GDPR”): Regulation 8(2) of the Data Protection, P rivacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Ar ticle 4(11)

by his employer as a public institution is lawful according to Article 6(1)(c), (e) GDPR and the applicable Hamburg transparency law. The Court argued that

were in violation of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR, but the DPA dismissed its previous finding of the Article 5(1)(b) GDPR violation. The DPA

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 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

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

2022, Article 82 GDPR, paragraph 20; Nemitz, in: Ehmann/Selmayr, GDPR, 2nd edition 2018, Article 82, paragraph 20; Gola/Piltz, in: Gola/Heckmann, GDPR/ BDSG

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

accordance with Article 4(7) GDPR for any Processing of Personal Information in Business Tool Data under GDPR not subject to Sections 5.a.i and 5.a.ii.” 4 Meta Ireland’s

to Art. 17 GDPR. There are none of the reasons set out in Article 17 (1) a to f GDPR. A right to erasure according to Art. 17 Para. 1 d GDPR is ruled out

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

areas pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. The court held that the video surveillance was not lawful pursuant to Article 6(1)(a) GDPR as the data subjects

provided for in Article 30 of the Rules. 4. On the breach of the obligation to cooperate with the services of the CNIL 60. Article 31 of the GDPR provides that

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

personal data within the meaning of Article 4.1) of the GDPR. 14 12 GDPR, Art. 4, 1). ; Opinion 4/2007 of the “article 29” working group on data protection

date 07/28/2022 standard B-VG Art133 Para.4 DSG §24 paragraph 1 DSG §24 paragraph 5 GDPR Art12 GDPR Art15 GDPR Art4 VwGVG §28 paragraph 2 WTBG 2017 §80 saying

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

Clearview AI, according to Chapter 4 Section 2 of the Criminal Data Act with the restrictions that follow from Chapter 4 § 5 of the same law. The information

accounts of three of its former employees in violation of Article 5(1) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. GEICO S.p.A., the controller, was the employer of the three

the Guarantor pursuant to article 36 of the Regulation "(article 110 of the Code, article 9, paragraph 2, letter j) and par. 4 of the Regulation). In the

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

the data subject’s consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR but on compliance with legal obligations under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and that the data subject did not

for GDPR violations before. Thus, the DPA issued a reprimand to the controller for breaching Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR and 12(6) GDPR. Share

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

to receive calls. The ICO highlighted that consent, as defined by Article 4(11) GDPR, must be "freely given", meaning an organisation must be able to demonstrate

the GDPR includes both a reference to the definition of consent (article 4 of the GDPR) as well as to the conditions of it (article 7 of the GDPR) 34.

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

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

according to Article 4, point 11, as well as the Restrictions according to Article 7 GDPR. (149) According to Article 5 (1) point b) of the GDPR, personal

fairness and transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as well as the data subject’s right to information under Articles 12 and 13 GDPR, and issued a fine of €10

the UK GDPR and the DPA. They are obliged by Article 5(2) to adhere to the data processing principles set out in Article 5(1) of the UK GDPR. Article 5(2)

for by Article 51 of the GDPR. 13. By Article 57(1) of the GDPR, it is the Commissioner's task to monitor and enforce the application of the GDPR. 14. By

pursuant to Article 14 (1) (d), (e) and (f) and (2) (c), (e) and (f) of the GDPR in accordance with Article 14 (5) (a) of the GDPR (point 4). It was explained

cooperation process set up by the GDPR, all supervisory authorities concerned within the meaning of Article 4(22) of the GDPR may issue relevant and reasoned

purposes of Article 4(16) GDPR." Consequently, the DPA concluded that the cooperation mechanism and procedure set out in Article 56(1) GDPR and Article 60 GDPR

DPA issued a reprimand to the controller for breaching Article 12(2) GDPR and Article 12(6) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

III No. 84/2018 as amended: Article 15, Article 17, Article 51, paragraph one, Article 57, paragraph one, letter f, and Article 77, paragraph one, of Regulation

provided in each case in accordance with Art. 4 No. 2 GDPR, profiling them in accordance with Art. 4 No. 4 GDPR or other third parties other than their legal

provided for article 77.1 of the LOPDGDD, results from the application of the general sanctioning regime provided for in article 83 of the RGPD. Article 83.5 of

court upheld Article 6(1)(e) GDPR as the legal basis for the processing of personal data. Furthermore, according to the court, Article 9(2)(j) GDPR states that

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

430 and 432(6)). 6. Consent is defined in Article 4(11) the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 ("GDPR") as "any freely given, specific, informed

conjunction with Article 3, Article 4(2) and Article 8(1)(b) of Law No. 58/2019, all of which implement the GDPR in the internal legal order.Article 4(2) and Article

personal data was the necessity for the performance of a contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR). The AEPD confirmed that the website was not public and that only

hereafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. The startup agreement was sent, in accordance

that there was no breach of Article 32 GDPR. Thus, the CNIL imposed a €310,000 fine on the controller for breaching Article 6 GDPR. To grasp the notion of

rely on Article 9(2)(b) GDPR. The LArbG Berlin-Brandenburg also confirmed that the processing was not necessary in light of Article 9(2)(b) GDPR, and emphasised

Data Protection Regulation. Pursuant to Article 8 (3) no. 2 UWG in conjunction with § Article 8 (1) and Article 3a UWG authorise competition associations

with the terminology resulting from the GDPR (Art. 4 No. 1: "Personal data", Art. 4 No. 2: "Processing", Art. 4 No. 6: "File system"), (Gola/Heckmann/Gola/Reif

duties under Article 13 GDPR, as the information allegedly provided to the data subject lacked the requirements laid down in said Article, and the relevant

procedure a It can be submitted in the case specified in Article 77 (1) of the GDPR. Article 77 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation: Other administrative

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

of the GDPR has violated: iv. Article 4.11), Article 5.1.a) and 5.2, Article 6.1.a), as well as Article 7.1 and 7.3 GDPR; v. Article 5, Article 24.1, as

conditions provided for in Article 6.1.e) are met by the species. Under Article 6.3.b) and recital 45 of the GDPR, processing based on Article 6.1.e) must meet two

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

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

the grounds stated in paragraph 4 below, in particular in marginal numbers 4.16, 4.22, 4.24, 4.29, 4.30, 4.31, 4.35 and 4.36. I explain the ground of appeal

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

data processing in question is profiling within the meaning of Article 4, Paragraph 4, GDPR, which creates “informational added value” to which express reference

under the GDPR and to keep within the legal timeframes; and also giving due regard to the circumstances contemplated under Article 83.2 of the GDPR and taking

pursuant to Article 52, paragraph 2, item 7, DSG 2000 in conjunction with Article 69, paragraph 5, DSG and Article 62, paragraph 1, item 4, DSG, or 4) pursuant

III No. 84/2018 as amended: Article 15, Article 17, Article 51, paragraph one, Article 57, paragraph one, letter f, and Article 77, paragraph one, of Regulation

algorithm. Under Article 4(4) GDPR, this processing of data is considered profiling. According to Austrian data protection law (see Article 1 §2 DSG), processing

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

infringe Articles 5(1)(f)- 5(1)(e) and 33(1) GDPR? The DPC held that UCD infringed: - Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1) GDPR by failing to process personal data on

the processing was lawful within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. According to Article 88 GDPR, the GDPR is applicable without prejudice to more protective

constitute perosnal data under Article 4(1) GDPR, since the individuals are identifiable and also because under Article 11 GDPR, it is not mandatory that individuals

in the GDPR and the DPA. They are obliged by Article 5(2) to adhere to the data processing principles set out in Article 5(1) of the GDPR. Article 5(2) makes

states is superimposed (see Recital 146 S 4 and 5 on the GDPR; cf. also Frenzel in Paal / Pauly, GDPR-BDSG3 Art 82 GDPR margin no.1; Wybitul / Haß / Albrecht

controller violated Article 6 GDPR because it had no legal basis to disclose the email addresses. It reasoned that Article 6(1)(a) GDPR was not applicable

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

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

obligations under Article 21 of the GDPR. Fourthly, EDF breached its obligation to guarantee data security as prescribed in Article 32 of the GDPR. In particular

obligation to inform the persons concerned pursuant to Article 14 of the GDPR 71. Article 14 of the GDPR provides that when personal data have not been collected

minimization (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR). The investigation also revealed other breaches with respect to the principle of storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR). Indeed

subject's right to privacy pursuant to Article 85 GDPR and Article 7 of Law 190/2018 (the Romanian implementation of the GDPR). As such, the case was considered

violated section 13(6) of the German Telemedia Act (TMG) or Article 4(7) GDPR and Artcicle 25(1) GDPR? The Higher Regional Court Munich dismissed the appeal

breach of the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) GDPR and Article 33(5) GDPR. Article 5(2) GDPR establishes the principle of accountability which

accordance with Article 1 (1) (f) and (2) of the GDPR, Article 24 (1) of the GDPR, Article 25, paragraph 1 of the GDPR and article 32 of the GDPR. Please also

pursuant to Article 4, 2) of the GDPR, as much data processing to personal character. 72. The Litigation Chamber recalls that Article 4.7) of the GDPR defines

of Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 14 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR, Article 28 GDPR, Article 32 GDPR and Article 33 GDPR, as well as of Article L. 34-5

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

for by Article 51 of the GDPR. 17. By Article 57(1) of the GDPR, it is the Commissioner's task to monitor and enforce the application of the GDPR. 18. By

processing. Same principles concerning fair data processing exist in the GDPR Article 5 and Recital 39 and the Irish DPA 2018. Share blogs or news articles

the general data protectionArticle 5 (1) (a), Article 5 (2), Article 12 (1) and (4) ofArticle 14, Article 15 and Article 21 (4).1.3. The Authority condemns

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

assessed that the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 7 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR and Article 130 of the Italian Privacy Code also

regarding Article 6(1) GDPR and consent requirements regulated previously to GDPR. The fact that the infringements related to Article 25 GDPR did not include

to Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR, personal data is all information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. According to Art. 4 No. 2 GDPR, processing

their conservation. From what emerged in the documents (see paragraphs 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4), it does not appear that the Company has adopted, in compliance with

cross-border processing within the meaning of Article 4, paragraph 23, of the GDPR. 33. Pursuant to Article 60(3) of the GDPR, the draft decision adopted by the restricted

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 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

freedom (Article 2.2 sentence 2 of the Basic Law) and her general right of personality (Article 2.1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 1.1 of 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

Administrative Court's application of Article 16 GDPR. The Administrative Court had correctly assumed that, while Article 16 GDPR was applicable, it could not be

arising from Article 25 of the GDPR. 5. The breach relating to the obligation to ensure the security of personal data 97. Article 32 of the GDPR provides that:

data on the basis of Article 6.1.e GDPR ? - Did the administration sharing confidential data with a third party violates article 25 GDPR ? - Should the administration

is done using a water meter and its readout. Article 12(5) GDPR in conjunction with Article 18(1)(d) GDPR does not prevent the charging of an administrative

violated Article 34(2) GDPR, because he only informed the data subject of the alleged data loss. However, the information obligations of Article 34 GDPR provide

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

processing lack any applicable conditions found in Article 9(2) GDPR and was found in breach of Article 5(2) GDPR. Additionally, the Garante reiterated that the

must be possible under Article 82 of the LIL. Consent under this Article must be understood within the meaning of Article 4(11) GDPR meaning it must be given

regarding Article 6(1) GDPR and consent requirements regulated previously to GDPR. The fact that the infringements related to Article 25 GDPR did not include

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

in violation of Article 6 GDPR. Thirdly, it was claimed that Meta unlawfully processed special categories of personal data (Article 9 GDPR). Fourth, and

indictments. 2.2. Identification of the controller (Article 4.7 GDPR) 71. In accordance with Article 4.7 of the GDPR, the controller should be considered: the “natural

Violations of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR The DPA held that the controller did not violate Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR. The DPA

purposes of prescription in the article 72.1.a) of the LOPDGDD. . Violation of article 32 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the same Regulation, and

contained in Article 15(1)(h) only relates to the form of automated decision making referred to in Article 22(1) to (4). This implied that under Article 15(1)(h)

Ordinance Article 32, but that the notified fee is accepted. 4. The requirements of the regulations 4.1. Responsible for processing Article 4 (7) of the

erasure (Article 17 of the GDPR), the right to restriction (Article 18 GDPR), as well as the right of opposition (Article 21 GDPR) 91. Article 17 of the

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

requirements of Article 85 GDPR. § 9(1) DSG provides - in implementation of the obligation under EU law pursuant to Article 85(1) GDPR - that the provisions

subject falls outside of the scope of Article 20 GDPR. The data that falls under Article 20 is less than under Article 15 GDPR. The court also considered that

II.4. Violation of Article 12(1) and (4) of the GDPR, Article 17 of the GDPR, Article 24(1) of the GDPR and Article 25 (1) of the GDPR 55. The Inspectorate

with Article 5 (1) (f) and Article 32.1 and 32.2 of the Data Protection Ordinance, Chapter 4 § 2 and ch. 6 § 7 the Patient Data Act and Chapter 4 2 § HSLF-FS

examined Article 81 of the GDPR, but not the actually relevant Article 82 of the GDPR. The claims asserted in the counterclaim under Article 82 of the

with the GDPR. In the context of the extended ex officio investigation, the DPA also found a violation of Article 12(6) GDPR and Article 12(2) GDPR on facilitating

that according to the evidence in the case, Vodafone had violated Article 6(1) GDPR for unlawful processing of the data without a proven justification

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

violation of Article 5(1)(a), Article 12(1) and (2), Article 13(1)(c) and (2)(a) of the GDPR. II.4. Article 5 GDPR, Article 24 (1) GDPR and Article 25 (1) and

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

contemplates in its article 76, entitled “Sanction- tions and corrective measures ”: "1. The penalties provided for in sections 4, 5 and 6 of article 83 of the Regulation

result of the violations of article 5.1 a), article 5.2, article 6.1, article 12.1, article 13.1 c) and d) and article 13.2 b) GDPR. 21. On 17 June 2020, the

the "lifting". (4.2) Exclusions (4.2.1) GDPR and AO restrictions According to Art. 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the person concerned (Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR) has a right to

of Article 6(1)(e) are met. II.2. Article 5 of the GDPR, Article 24(1) of the GDPR and Article 25(1) and (2) of the AVG II.2.1. Article 5 (2) GDPR, Article

The Regional Court of Berlin held that a right to information under Article 15 GDPR cannot be enforced by way of an interim injunction, since there is no

free copy (see below (b)) is neither by Article 15 (4) GDPR (see below (c)) nor by Article 12 (5) sentence 2 GDPR excluded (see below (d)). The claim is

by virtue of Article 83(2)(e) of the GDPR in order to gauge the illegality of the data controller’s actions. The AEPD, relying on Article 85 of Law 39/2015

2018”), Article 4(7) of the General Data Protection Regulation (“the GDPR”), and Article 4(7) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (“the UK GDPR”).

(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

redress. Therefore, the DPA declared an infringement of Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 12(4) GDPR. Additionally, the DPA held that the controller, whether

violation of Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR, and a fine of €4 million for a violation of Article 6 of the GDPR, and ordered CaixaBank, to conduct a review

virtue of article 4.7 of the GDPR. The GDPR provides, in its article 56.1, for cases of cross-border processing, provided for in its article 4.23), in relation

Union is intrinsic to EU law and finds its basis "also in Article 5 of the Treaty [now Article 4(3) TFEU], according to which Member States [shall] take

HmbKrebsRG Article 9 (1) GDPR, Article 6 (1) GDPR, Article 5 (1) in conjunction with Articles 12, 13 and/or Article 14 GDPR and/or Article 5 (1) (in particular

violated Article 14(1) and (2) GDPR. Because it failed to provide clear and transparent information, the controller also violated Article 12(1) GDPR. The DPA

according to its faculties under Article 58(2)(a), Article 58(2)(b) and Article 58(2)(d), as well as Article 83(5) GDPR, Share your comments here! Share

cross-border nature within the meaning of Article 4 (23) of the aforementioned GDPR. 47. In application of article 55.1 of the GDPR, the restricted committee considers

The facts 3.1-3.10 4 The SyRI legislation 4.1-4.3 General 4.4-4.7 Provision of data for a joint venture 4.8-4.10 Legal basis SyRI 4.11-4.16 Risk notifications

violation of Article 7(4) GDPR. Based on these considerations, the AEPD issued a €2,000,000 fine against Caixabank for infringing Article 6 GDPR in relation

conjunction with Article 9 (3) GDPR and in conjunction with the national provisions (Article 9 (4) GDPR) have been met. 177 (4.3.1.) Data processing is initially

(EU) No Article 5 (1) (a) and (b), Article 6 (1), Article 6 (4) Article 12 (1), Article 13, Article 21 (1) and (2), Article 24 (1), Article 25 Article 1 (1)

legitimate interest. Based on Article 2 (1) of the GDPR, the GDPR must be applied to the data management in this case. GDPR Article 4, point 1: "personal data":

these allegations, she placed reliance upon Recitals 1, 4 and 7 together of Article 4(11) of GDPR. Whelan J., has stated the evidence indicates that the

fairness and transparency, as stipulated by Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12(1) GDPR, as well as Article 13(2) GDPR due to the lack of information on the period

processing of the personal data was neither in breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, nor of Article 32 GDPR. Share your comments here! Press release (in English)

involve a breach of the provisions of Article 6 of the GDPR, in relation to Article 22 of the LOPDGDD. Article 6 of the GDPR has four paragraphs, which in turn

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

for a violation of article 58.2 c) of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.6 of the GDPR, classified as very serious in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD

rectification.(article 16 of the GDPR), the right to be forgotten (article 17 of the GDPR), and the right to limit the use ofdata processed unlawfully (article 18

under Article 4(6) of the GDPR. 86. The relevant provisions, which have been set out above, are Article 2(1), 4(1), 4(6) and Recital 15 of the GDPR. 87.

the relevant provisions of the GDPR are Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 12(1). 28. Article 14 of the GDPR concerns transparency in the context

agreement violated Articles 28 and 29 GDPR and that the lack of records of the processing activities violated Article 30 GDPR. For theses reasons, it deemed the

meaning of Article 4(1) GDPR. Nevertheless, in this case the controller had the right to disregard the request in light of Article 12(5)(b) GDPR, as the latter

of data within the meaning of Article 4(2) GDPR, hence the lawfulness of the observation was tested directly against Article 8 ECHR. The requirement by the

particular via an identifier (Article 4.1 of the GDPR). The defendant is accused of committing an infraction due to violation of article 6 of the RGPD, “Legitimacy

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

Communications Act (ZEKom-1), the GDPR and the Data Protection Act (ZVOP-1). The principles of Article 5 of the GDPR must be followed and attention must

data processing within the meaning of Article 6 (1) GDPR. 69Personal data within the meaning of Article 4 No. 1 GDPR is available because the plaintiff's

claim was Article 16 GDPR, as § 12 Bundesmeldegesetz (BMG - Federal Registration Act) clarifies. Then, it held that the legal requirements of Article 16 GDPR

of €10,000 under Article 82(1) GDPR for a violation of Articles 15 GDPR and 12(3) GDPR. The LAG held that a mere violation of the GDPR does not give rise

alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR and Article 83.4 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan

required by Article 13 GDPR. Furthermore, the AEPD, highlighted that the RFEF did not provide the information required by Article 13(3) GDPR about further

contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR), nor could be based on legitimate interest of the controller (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR). Consent (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR) could

violation of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, Article 6 of the GDPR, Article 9 of the GDPR, Article 12 of the GDPR, Article 35 of the RGPD, Article 13 of the RGPD

adopted on July 7, 2021, state that Article 26 of the GDPR, which reflects the definition of Article 4.7 of the GDPR, provides that “When two or more managers

para. 2 lit. c and Article 15(3) of the GDPR. The expert opinion was personal data within the meaning of Art. 4 No. 1 of the GDPR. The GDPR does not differentiate

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

as a “violation” within the meaning of Article 4 No. 12 GDPR. No data protection impact assessment (Art. 35 GDPR) was carried out. The defendant did not

awarded (Article 167 of the RD 31 August 1933, No. 1592; Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Ministerial Decree of 22 October 2004, No. 270 and Article 7 , paragraph

tried to base the processing on contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) or legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR), the requirement of necessity was not met

adequacy decision (Article 45 GDPR) nor suitable guarantees (Article 46 GDPR) are in place for the third country concerned, cf. Article 49 Paragraph 1 Sentence