Search results

not apparent why the principle laid down in Article 72(1) GDPR should be deviated from. Article 72(1) GDPR stipulates that the Board shall take decisions

within the meaning of Article 72(1) GDPR. The GDPR does not contain detailed content requirements for the RoP. Article 74(2) GDPR only stipulates that the

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

specific rules. Article 82 GDPR introduces a right to compensation for damage caused as a result of an infringement of the GDPR. Article 82(1) contains the

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

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

provided for in Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or, as the case may be, Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, and consent is withdrawn according to Article 7(3) GDPR, data must be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the EDPB's Rules of Procedure (“RoP”). Article 33(1) RoP stipulates that in “accordance with Art 76 (1) GDPR”, discussions of the Board and of expert

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

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

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

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

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

(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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

establishes an EU-wide penalty regime for violations under Article 83 GDPR, Article 84(1) GDPR dispenses with complete harmonisation. It does, however, provide

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

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

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

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

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

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

first glance, Article 92 GDPR's wording seems to be in conflict with Article 290(1) TFEU, but in actuality it is not. Article 92(2) GDPR must be read in

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

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

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

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

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

Articles 4(11), 6(1)(a), 7 and 8 GDPR. For the definition of 'consent', see the more commentary under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and Article 7 GDPR. For the definition

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

framework of voluntary cooperation provided for in Article 62(1) GDPR is partly supplemented by Article 62(2) GDPR, which contains several cases in which joint

compliance with the GDPR under Article 58(2)(d) GDPR or even ban it under Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. Therefore, complaints under Article 77 GDPR should extend to

with 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

request (Article 61(5) GDPR), the requesting SA may adopt a provisional measure on the territory of its Member State under Article 55(1) GDPR. If the SA

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

the SAs' tasks, please refer to Article 57 GDPR and for their powers please refer to Article 58 GDPR. See Recital 122 GDPR. In this respect, reference should

mentioned in Article 26(1), but also encompasses other obligations of controllers under the GDPR. EDPB: This extends to various obligations under the GDPR, including

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

surveillance cameras, it was therefore in breach of Article 37(1)(b) GDPR by not having a DPO. Article 37(1) GDPR specifies three conditions in which the designation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

practice. Recital 1: The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right. Article 8(1) of the Charter

Ordinance Article 5, paragraph Article 5 (2) 1, letter c and letter f., Article 5, paragraph Article 6 (1) (a) Article 32 (1), (1), (33) 1 and 35, para. 1. Below

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

according to To 1): € 1.200,00 To 2): € 300,00 To 3): € 300,00 . . . In total: € 1.800 To 1): 3 days To 2): 1 day To 3): 1 day ... In total: 5 days Ad 1): Art.

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

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

articles 5.1.,b) juncto 24.1 and 9.2.a) juncto 7.3 of the RGPD; - that it is not necessary to pronounce one of the measures provided for in Article 100, §1 of

provisions of article 83.1 of the GDPR. In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR and article 76 of

prohibited by Article 9(1) of the GDPR. In order to process such data, the controller should have validly relied in one of the exceptions from Article 9(2). However

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

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

the GDPR. The dental practise violated the GDPR by not informing the DPA of the data breach within 72 hours and, thereby, violated Article 33 GDPR. The

referred to in Article 33(1) of the AVG.15 15 File note 1, Notification of personal data breach 7-2-2019. P 5. 3.4.3 Assessment Article 33(1) of the AVG provides

IMPOSE Ms. B.B.B., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of the Article 5.1.c) and 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) and b) of the RGPD, a fine

***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

of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD typified in Article 83.5.a) of the RGPD and considered very serious, for the purposes of prescription, in Article 72.1.a)

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

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

infringement of the GDPR, articles: -12 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.b) of the GDPR and 72.1.k) of the LOPDGDD, and -5.1.c) of the GDPR, in accordance

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

processing 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

and application of Article 20.1 c) by the AEPD implies the exclusion of the weighting required by the legitimizing basis of Article 6.1.f) of the RGPD and

provision(s): Regarding 1) - Article 5(1)(a) and (c) and Article 6(1) of the Data Protection Basic Regulation - DSGVO, OJ No L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1. Re 2) (a) Section

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

within the 72-hour time limit mandated by Article 33(1). Did the secretariat of the DPA breach its data security obligations under Articles 32(1), 33(1), and

under Article 4(12) GDPR. Second, the AP found that PVV Overijssel was obliged to notify the data breach to the AP within 72 hours pursuant to Article 33(1)

breach and had failed to do so within the timeframe set out in Article 33(1) of the GDPR, meaning that the company had breached this provision. Consequently

the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, in accordance with the provisions of Article 83.5 of the RGPD and 72.1.i) of the LOPDGDD, considered

infringement of article 5.1 d) of the RGPD because the due payment request was not made due to a quality problem of the data. IV Article 72.1.a) of the LOPDGDD

the presumed infringement of article 5.1 b) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, in relation to Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD. SECOND:

subparagraphs b '. y '. d 'and e' of par. 1 of article 5 as well as of article 6 par. 1ΓΚΠΔ ... ». 3. Reasoning 3.1. The data contained in an insurance policy

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

personal data by bank to the data subject's wife under Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR and Article 5 (1) (f) GDPR. An additional €50,000 was added for the violation

the same year, for alleged infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, proposing a fine of 50,000 euros. Vodafone

questions: 1° Should Article 72.2 of the e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(f) of that directive and with Article 95 of the

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)

with NIF G08564379, an infringement of article 5.1.b) GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 GDPR, in relation to Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD, a fine of 5000 euros

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)

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

infringement in accordance with referred to in Article 72 of the LOPDGDD, which provides "1. Depending on what Article 83(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 are considered

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

imposed a fine of €60000 for the violating Article 5(1)(d) GDPR and €30000 for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in

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

of 25,000 euros (Article 83, paragraph 2 GDPR; Article 100, §1, 13 ° WOG and Article 101 WOG). 18 55. Taking into account article 83 GDPR and the case law

confidentiality referred to in article 5.1.f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " Its article 72.1.a) considers it: “Violations considered very serious "1. In accordance with

Articles 2.1, 4 2), 5.1 c) and 57.1 a), f) and h) GDPR, to the extent necessary read in conjunction with Article 288(2) TFEU and Articles 4 § 1, 63, 72 and 100

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

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

limitation period, article 72 of the LOPDGDD indicates: Article 72. Infractions considered very serious. "1. Based on the provisions of article 83.5 of Regulation

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

imposed a fine of 20.000 EUR on IBERIA Airlines for the violation of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, when further sending unsolicited emails after a customer has requested

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

data contained in article 5(f) and 32 the GDPR? The AEPD held that this offense is considered as ‘grave’ in accordance with Article 72(1)(k) LOPDGDD and

regard to Client 1 that data management - infringed Article 25 (1) to (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation, - infringed Article 32 (1) (b) of the General

the public interest, per Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and was also necessary for scientific research purposes under Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Thirdly, that the data

controller, in this case the public administration, breached Articles 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD examined a complaint submitted by an anonymous citizen

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

with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, in relation to Article 72(1)(a) a fine of EUR

for the infringement of Article 5.1 f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD and considered very serious in 72.1.a), for the purposes of

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

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

the offense considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

controller violated Article 33(1) GDPR by failing to inform the DPA of the data breach. Second, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 28(1), (3) and

instance, the controller sought to rely upon Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and Article 9(2)(j) GDPR. Article 6(1)(e) GDPR establishes a lawful basis for the processing

as established in article 5 of the GDPR. The security of personal data is regulated in articles 32, 33 and 34 of the GDPR. III The GDPR defines personal

(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

thealleged infringement of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPDand considered very serious in 72.1.a), for the purposes of prescription

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

LOPDGDD in its article 72 indicates for the purposes of prescription: "Infractions considered very serious: "1. Based on the provisions of article 83.5 of the

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

person in charge of the treatment, the violation of article 13 of the RGPD. In this sense, article 72.1.h) of the LOPDGDD, considers it very serious, for

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

(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

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

referred to as LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Upon notification of the aforementioned

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

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

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

S.A.U. with NIF 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

L. for the infringement of Article 13 GDPR (data privacy policy) and a warning penalty for the infringement of Article 7 GDPR regarding the collection of

breach Article 13 GDPR even if the contact form is not operational? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) held that the defendant, PSI, violated Article 13 GDPR by failing

Ministry of Tourism violated Article 33 GDPR by failing to report the aforementioned data breach, and Article 37(1) GDPR by not appointing a DPO (at the

of articles 83.1 and 83.2 of the RGPD must be observed. In turn, pursuant to article 83. 2.k GDPR, the circumstances described in article 76 LOPDGDD may

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

violation of Article 21 RGPD, by not effectively attending to the exercise of the mentioned right. On the other hand, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 72.1.k), qualifies

breach of Article 32 of the GDPR has occurred. B. On the failure to notify the data breach to the CNIL 32. Pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the GDPR, in 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

against the controller. Based on Article 72(1)(b) of the national data protection law, and Articles 83(1) and 83(2) GDPR, the DPA considered aggravating

itself, that the information and measures mentioned in Article 33(1)(b) to Article 33(1)(d) GDPR must also be communicated to the data subject. However

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

an alleged violation of article 6 of the GDPR typified as an infringement of basic principles for processing in article 83.5 GDPR. In determining the amount

A80907397, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 1. APPOINT Mr. D.D.D. as instructor. and

Vodafone España, S.A.U. (the defendant) for the infringement of Article 6(1) of the GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early voluntary payment of the corresponding

messages. Is this a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR? The AEPD held that this behaviour was a violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR and fined Vodafone €100,000

safeguards of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR). The Court explained that the Directive and GDPR do not indicate that EU legislature has chosen to

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

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

(definition) Article 5.1 : Principles of data processing Article 5.1.a : Principle of legality, objectivity and transparency Article 5.1.b : Principle

complaint - infringes Article 6(1) GDPR, by unlawfully processing the complainant's personal data, in relation to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, which governs the

his/her consent. The DPA first outlined Article 6(1)(a) and (b) GDPR, Articles 4(11) GDPR on consent, as well as Article 6 of the Spanish Data Protection Law

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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

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

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

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

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

functions 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

for the Judicial Institutions Department of the Ministry. Considerations 1.1 First of all, the court assesses whether the plaintiff is justifiably exempted

regarding Articles 5(1)(b) GDPR and 5(1)(e) GDPR and held that national courts had to determine, using the factors of Article 6(4) GDPR, whether further processing

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

provisions of Article 5.1 of the AVG, but concerns the entire AVG. 31. The aforementioned follows from the merger of Article 5.2 of the AVG and Article 24.1 of the

serious infringement in article 72.1.a) "The processing of personal data violating the principles and guarantees established in article 5 of the Regulation

out by the school). Article 9 GDPR, for having processed biometric data without any valid ground from Article 9(2). Article 13 GDPR, for not having informed

correspond would be for 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

its article 72, it considers for the purposes of prescription, that they are: "Infractions considered very serious: 1. In accordance with Article 83(5)

"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

PS/00093/2019 for "alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Article 5.1(f) of the RGPD and Article 72.1(a) of the LOPDGDD". The respondent states in its second

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

of article 39 bis 2 of the LSSI so that withinONE MONTH from the notification of this resolution:2.1. COMPLIES with the provisions of article 21.1 of the

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

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

transactions are personal data under Article 4(1) GDPR and are as such subject to the right of access guaranteed by Article 15 GDPR. The DPA did not, however, explicitly

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

an infractionof article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) and classified as very serious toprescription effects in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD

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

of an infringement of Article 5 (1) (f) of the GDPR under (74345679) (f) of the GDPR, as set out in Article 83 (5) (a) of the GDPR. SECOND: To notify this

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

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

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

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72, under the heading "Infractions considered very serious ”provides: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation

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

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

requirements of Article 15 of the GDPR. 23. Even assuming that the complaint should be interpreted as a request based on Article 15 of the GDPR (and to which

breach of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR ("integrity and confidentiality"). Therefore, the Spanish DPA held that there was an infringement of the GDPR. It imposed

for the alleged violation of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD in relation to article 72.1 b) of the LOPDGDD. FIFTH: The

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

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

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

AEPD concluded that the defendant could have breached Article 13 GDPR, Article 7 GDPR and Article 22(2) LSSI: there was no identification of the data controller

recorded such acts and uploaded the video to Instagram had infringed Article 6(1) GDPR, for processing personal data without a legitimate basis (namely without

the offense considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

comply with Article 33 GDPR and Article 34 GDPR. Consequently, it issued a reprimand to the controller in accordance with Article 58(2)(b) GDPR. First, 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

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

on April 1, 2017 in the amount of €39.96, 14 Tariff B... increase on April 1, 2020 in the amount of €74.26, 15Tarif T... increase on April 1, 2017 in the

typified in Article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers such as: 'failure to provide access in breach of Article 58(1)'. The same Article states that

virtue of article 4.7 of the GDPR. For its part, article 5.1.c) of the GDPR regulates the “principles relating to processing” establishing that: “1. Personal

organisation contravene Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? The AEPD found that the disclosure of her personal data to the 400 members violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD stressed

based comply with Article 13 of the GDPR? The Spanish DPA found that the facts constituted an infringement for violation of Article 13 of the RGPD, and

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

supervisory authority pursuant to Article 58(2) or failing to provide access in violation of Article 58(1).” Article 72.1 (m) of Organic Law 3/2018 on the

specified time". 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 processing

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

affirmative act, may constitute an infringement of Article 6(1) of infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR. Article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD, for its part, considers

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

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/

infringement, attributable to the claimed, for violation of article 13 of the RGPD. For its part, article 72.1.h) of the LOPDGDD, considers very serious, for the

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

constitutive of an infringement for violation of article 7 of the RGPD mentioned. For its part, article 72.1.c) of the LOPDGDD, considers very serious, for

O 177/22; LG Regensburg, judgment of May 1, 2023 - 72 O 731/22) .Section. 61According to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, personal data must be processed lawfully

of the infringement considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with article 58.2 of the RGPD. SECOND: TO NOTIFY

commission of the offense considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with article 58.2 of the RGPD. SECOND: NOTIFY

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:

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

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

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

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

of the infringement considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with article 58.2 of the RGPD. SECOND: TO NOTIFY

the violation considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, of according to art. 58.2 of the GDPR.

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

the offense considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

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

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

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

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72, under the heading "Infractions considered very serious ”provides: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation

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

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

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

of Article 5(1)(d) of the GPRS, in relation to Article 4(1) of the LOPDGDD, which governs the principle of accuracy of personal data. IV Article 72.1.a)

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

with NIF ***NIF.1 (hereinafter the claimant), for the installation of a video surveillance in ***ADDRESS.1, ***APPARTMENTS.1 - ***LOCALITY.1 (SANTACRUZ OF

PUB ***PUB.1 located on CALLE ***ADDRESS.1, when there are two video surveillance cameras installed in it. Article 13 of the RGPD, sections 1 and 2, establishes

offense for violation of the Article 6.1 of the RGPD. Article 6, Legality of treatment, of the RGPD establishes that: "1. The treatment will only be lawful

entities, as indicated in article 77.1. c) and 2. 3. 4. 5. and 6. of the LOPDDGG: “1. The regime established in this article will apply to the treatments

for the infringement of the confidentiality principle specified at Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment

the infraction considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

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

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 existence or absence of a decision in accordance with Article 46, Article 47 or Article 49 (1). in the case of the transmission referred to in the second

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

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)

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

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

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

with the principle of fair and transparent processing contained in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? Is the information relating to personal data processing operations

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 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

recording is "processing" of "personal data" within the meaning of Article 4(1) and 4(2) GDPR. Therefore, the data subject has the right to request access to

infringement of the right to objection specified at Article 21 GDPR in connection with Article 48(1)(b) of the Spanish Telecommunications General Law, as

reprimand to the company for not complying with Article 13 GDPR, since it failed to even mention the GDPR in its Privacy Policy. Share your comments here

violation of Article 6(1) GDPR? AEPD considered that the documentation provided offers evidence that Vodafone violated Article 6(1) of the GDPR, by processing

violation of article 6 of the RGPD, indicated in reason II. IV Article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD states that “ Based on what is established in article 83.5 of

amount ”.The LOPDGDD in its article 72 indicates: “Violations considered very serious:1. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.5 of the Regulation

the offense considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd

commission of the offence referred to in Article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned in accordance with Article 58.2 of the RGPD. SECOND: TO NOTIFY

show_context_help(h) { newWindow = window.open(h,"Help", "menubar=1,toolbar=1,scrollbars=1,resizable=1,width=700, height=500"); } </SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><STYLE

the offense considered in article 72.1.m) of the LOPDGDD, which will be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 58.2 of the GDPR. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

infringement of article 6.1 of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, and for the purposes of prescription in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD

sheriff was held to have not breached the GDPR. The processing of the case file was lawful under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR as it was necessary for the exercise of

in its article 72.1 m), under the heading "Infringements considered to be very serious," he says: "1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 83(5)

lack of valid consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Thus, it imposed VODAFONE a fine of EUR 75,000 under Article 83(5) GDPR, being indecisive whether there

data integrity, security and confidentiality under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. For the violation of Article 32, the AEPD issued the law firm with a reprimand

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

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

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

constitute of a breach of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. Second, the AEPD recalled that, compliant with Article 13(1) and (2) GDPR, and Article 22(4) of the Law on the

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

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

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

obtain such recordings through the camera, with grounds on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and Article 22 of the Spanish Data Protection Act (LOPDGDD), that allows

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

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

subjects to Under the conditions set out in Article 15 (1) and (3) of the GDPR, thereby infringing the GDPR Article 25 (1). III.3.2. Designed to handle requests

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72, under the heading "Infractions considered very serious ”provides: "1. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.5 of the

statute of limitations for the offense, article 72.1 of the LOPDGDD establishes: "Based on what is established in article 83.5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, considered

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

(the defendant) for the infringement of Article 6(1) of the GDPR, as the defendant agreed to an early and guilty voluntary payment of the corresponding

turn, article 72. 1 h) of the LOPDGDD, under the heading "Infringements considered very serious provides: “1 Based on the provisions of article 83.5 of

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

with Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f, art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 32 sec. 1 lit. d, art. 32 sec. 2, art. 33 paragraph. 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 of the Regulation

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72.1 m), under the heading “ Infractionsconsidered very serious ” provides:"one. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the

the controller was in breach of Article 33(1) GDPR, Article 33(3) GDPR, Articles 34(1) and 34(2) GDPR, and Article 5(2) GDPR, Firstly, the Polish DPA held

before the GDPR came into effect. Therefore, GDPR should not had applied. The Spanish National High Court (AN) analysed Recital 171 GDPR and noted that

provided in article 5.1.f) and 32.1 of the GDPR (LCEur 2016, 605). It should be noted that the GDPR, without prejudice to the provisions of its article 83, contemplates

inform the affected parties as provided for in Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. According to Article 30(1) GDPR a record must be kept by the responsible

in accordance with Article 32 (2) of the Regulation. 2nd 3.3. Article 33 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation 1 and Article 34 (1). 1 The Data Inspectorate

other legal basis for processing under Article 6 GDPR, the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR. Taking into account the low income

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

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

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

compliance with the provisions of section 1 and able to demonstrate it (“proactive responsibility”).” Article 72.1 a) of the LOPDGDD states that “according

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72, under the heading "Infractions considered very serious ”provides: "1. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.5 of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

have breached the lawfulness of processing principle as per article 6(1) GDPR, as well as article 20 of the Spanish Law on Personal Data Protection and Guarantee

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

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

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

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

and GDPR? Is a prediction of a political affiliation a "special category of data" under Article 9(1) GDPR? How much are the damages under Article 82 GDPR

the following corrective powers listed below: 1. impose an administrative fine in accordance with article 83, in addition to or instead of the aforementioned

had complied with its obligations under Article 33(1) but as well with Article 33(5). In relation to Article 33(1), the DPC view was that, on the basis of

functions 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

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

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

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 are found under Article 5(1)(a) and Article 5(2) GDPR respectively]. The Spanish DPA even made reference to Recital 40 GDPR on the legality of processing

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

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)

Ordinance [1] Article 32 (1). 1. The Danish Data Protection Agency also finds that Coop Danmark A / S has acted in accordance with Article 33 (1) of the Data

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

with the rules in the data protection regulation[1] article 32, subsection 1 and Article 33, subsection 1. Below follows a closer review of the case and

section 6. Paragraph 1 Article 8 and Article 27 Act no. 90/2018, cf. point f, paragraph 1 Article 5 and paragraph 2 Article 32 of regulation (EU) 2016/679

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

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

security, cf. Article 4, no. 12 of the Data Protection Regulation. 3.1. Article 32 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 32 (1) of the Data

violated Article 33(1), Article 34(1) GDPR by failing to notify the DPA of a personal data protection breach without undue delay, no later than within 72 hours

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

breach of Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(d), Article 5(2), Article 6 GDPR and 129 of the Code. The data controller also breached Article 12(2), Article 15 GDPR

Pursuant to Article 60 (2), a request to initiate an official data protection procedure may be made in the case provided for in Article 77 (1) of the General

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

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

engines (see Annex 1 to note of 9 January 2019, p. 1); b) to be "aware of the dispersion of data on 12.12.2018" (see note of 9 January 2019, p. 1) and to have

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

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

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

violation of article 6.1. f) of the RGPD, in relation with article 20.1 c) of the LOPDGDD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the cited GDPR That by writing

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

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

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

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

legal basis for processing under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, violated the data minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and improperly processed a special

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72, under the heading "Infractions considered very serious ”provides: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation

results from application of the provisions of article 72.1.k) of this organic law. According to article 72 of the LOPDGDD, it is considered very serious

accessed the CCTV cameras, thereby infringing Article 32(1) GDPR. The Council also violated Sections 71(1)(f), 72(1) and 78 of the 2018 Act by failing to implement

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

”. The LOPDGDD in its article 72 indicates: “Violations considered very serious: 1. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.5 of the Regulation

” 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

in the sum of £500,000. Breaches of GDPR Contravention of Article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR 47. Article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR has been contravened as the Cabinet

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 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

measures that would have implemented as required by Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) For its part, Article 72(1)(i) of the LOPDGDD considers a very serious infringement

may be recorded of the data processing, in violation of Article 13 and Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR. The complainant lodged a complaint with the AEPD about the

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

57 sec. 1 lit. a) and lit. h), art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1 and 2 and article. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) in connection with art. 33 paragraph 1 and art

three years, in accordance with article 72.1 of the LOPDGDD, which establishes that: "Based on what is established in article 83.5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

fairness of processing (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR), data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR), and data protection by default (Article 25(2) GDPR). The DPA suggested

(LOPDGDD) in its article 72, under the heading "Infractions considered very serious ”provides: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation

an infraction of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, and for the purposes of prescription in article 72.1.a) of the LOPDGDD

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

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

of article Article 24.1, and in relation to the obligations referred to in the previous section, The information obligation provided for in Article 5 of

12/13 public, as indicated in article 77.1. c) and 2. 4. 5. and 6. of the LOPDDGG: “1. The regime established in this article will be applicable to the treatments

notified in accordance with Article 34 GDPR. Therefore, the DPA found that the controller violated Article 33(1) and Article 34(1) GDPR and imposed a fine of

The Polish DPA held that a medical facility violated Articles 33(1) and 34(1) GDPR by not notifying the DPA and the data subject of a data breach after

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

supervisory authority (i.e. Article 33 (1 ) of the GDPR) and to notify the data subjects of breach of (Article 34 (1-2) of the GDPR), it would be necessary

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

Protection Agency's decision 3.1. Article 34 of the Data Protection Regulation It follows from Article 34 (1) of the Regulation 1, that when a breach of personal

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

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

legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR. It rejected the argument of the boating club that the publication was lawful under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, citing the judgment

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

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

LOPDGDG establishes a period of three years in article 72.1: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, considered very

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

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

should have notified the DPA under Article 33(1) GDPR and the data subjects affected by the breach under Article 34(1) GDPR. Regarding the corrective measure

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

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)

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

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

imposed a fine of €30,000 for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and €20,000 for the violation of Article 32 GDPR, but this was reduced to a total fine amounting

constituted an infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR for violating the principle of confidentiality and Article 32 GDPR for failing to implement appropriate

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

the Disputes Chamber judges that it is possible Article 5.1.a), Article 5.1.b) and Article 6.1 of the GDPR has been infringed. II.2. The basic principle

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

infringement of article 5.1.c) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, and for the alleged infringement of article 13, typified in article 83.5.b) of

violating Article 6 GDPR by taking audio recordings of its employees and costumers disproportionate to the data minimisation principle of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR

after data scraping chains of standards: GDPR Art. 15, Art. 82 BGB § 254, § 280 paragraph 1, § 362 paragraph 1, § 1004 ZPO § 141, § 286, § 287 Motto: The

accordance with Article 31 of the GDPR, Article 31, due to the security breach , GDPR. According to Article 83 Paragraph 4 Letter a of the GDPR, these two provisions

hereinafter: GDPR), OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, p. 1.: Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph 1 Letter c, Article 6, Article 12 Paragraph 3, Article 51 Paragraph 1, Article

Article 33(1) GDPR, Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 12(3) and (4) GDPR and issued the controller a €24,000 fine. The DPA also imposed the following corrective

confidentiality in Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and the requirements of Article 32 GDPR (as implemented in Article 72(1), 75 and 78, and by extension 71(1)(f) of the Irish

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

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

confidentiality established in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD held that medical histories are special categories of data under Article 9, the processing of which

which is not the data processing, article 5. 1.a) of the RGPD is being violated Establishes article 5.1.b) of the RGPD "1. The personal data will be: C /

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

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

prescription in article 72 of the LOPDGDD and both are typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. In this regard, article 29.5 of Law 40/2015, of October 1, on the

Articles 6 and 13 GDPR? The AEPD decided to impose, for infringement of Article 6 GDPR, a fine of € 10000 and, for infringement of Article 13 GDPR, a fine of

communicate them to the AEPD (article 37 RGPD). Article 37 RGPD, paragraphs 1 and 7 refer to these obligations and establish, respectively: "1. The person in charge

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.

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, Article 25 of the RGPD

meaning of Article 4 no. 7 of the GDPR.1,000 euros from Art. 82 (1) GDPR due to various violations of the GDPR. 22 1. The defendant violated Art. 32 (1) GDPR

negligence of the infringement (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR) the impact on basic personal identifiers (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR) Share your comments here! Share

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 to Public

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

accordance with the law (Article 2 of the Act on land and mortgage registers and mortgage and Article 20 (1) point 1 and Article 24 section 2 of the Geodetic

we must look for it in article 9 and 6 of the RGPD. Article 9 of the RGPD establishes in its sections 1 and 2.b) the following: "1. The processing of personal

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

permission in Article 6 (1) (c) GDPR and argues that it is the Viennese in accordance with Article 5 (3) of the EpiG in conjunction with Article 1 (2) (e) Contact

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

once all the persona data mentioned by virtue of Article 15(1) GDPR, in the lights of Recital (63) GDPR. Thus, the authority ruled that the lack of a complete

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

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

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

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 consent in at any

the data subjects. 1) A) The Controller has not respected Article 32, paragraph (1), point (a) and(b) and paragraph (2) of that article of Regulation (EU)

meaning of article 6.1.f of the GDPR, with the exception of the organizations mentioned in 1° of A and in 1°, 2°, 3°, 5° and 6° of B of I of article L. 612

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

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

FIRST: IMPOSE Don B.B.B., with NIF *** NIF.1, for a violation of Article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, and classified as a very

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

Articles 6(1) and 9(1) GDPR; b) the controller failed to adequately inform data subjects about the processing of their data, in violation of Article 14 GDPR;

violated Article 33(1) GDPR. Moreover, it violated Article 34(1) GDPR since it did not provide the data subjects with the information listed in Article 33(3)(b)

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

A50715366, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. of the GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 1. APPOINT D. B.B.B. as instructor.

found an infringement of Article 6(1) GDPR typified in Article 83(5)(a) GDPR and classified it as a grave infringement (Article 72(1) LOPDGDD). Due to these

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

infringement of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, and for the purposes of prescription, of article 72.1.a) of the LOPDGDD