Search results

out pursuant to Article 83(1) GDPR. This part of Article 83 concerns the principle of "unity of action" (see above). With Article 83(3) GDPR, the legislator

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

measures to ensure a level of security commensurate with the risks, in breach of Article 32 (1) (b) and (c) BDAR and Article 83 (2) (a), (d) and The factors

object (Article 21 GDPR) and the right to erasure (Article 17 GDPR) of data subjects. Therefore the controller was not found in breach of Article 25(2) GDPR

the Spanish DPA imposed a €3000 fine on the defendant and stated he has to comply with Article 5(1)(c) and Article 83(2)(a)(b) GDPR. Share your comments here

fact that Article 4(2) GDPR includes "transmission" and "dissemination" in the definition of processing means that publishing a recording of a person's

data. Hence, it considered Article 32(1)(a), Article 32(1)(b), Article 32(1)(d) GDPR to be breached. Pursuant to Article 82(2) GDPR, the DPA took several aggravating

such processing to be legitimate on the basis of Article 9 (2) (B) GDPR in conjunction with Article 32 GDPR" (see note cited, p. 4) (see footnote cit., p

complainant's Article 15 entitlements were aggravating factors in deciding the amount of the fine issued to the respondent, on the basis of GDPR Articles 83(2)(a)

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

accountability by article.5 par.2 GDPR, i.e. it violated fundamental principles of the GDPR on the protection of personal data. 8. As a consequence of the

sanctions HOLALUZ-CLIDOM, S.A. 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

violation of Article 5 (1) (a) and (2) and Article 6 (1) GDPR; and that 2. there is a violation of article 12, paragraph 1, paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, article

circumstances in relation to Article 5 and Articles 32 and 33 GDPR. First, there was the duration of the infringement under Article 83(2)(a) GDPR; second, there was

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

14/19 Regarding section k) of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, article 76, “Sanctions and corrective measures” provides: "2. In accordance with the provisions

of the legal bases in Article 6 (1) and an additional criterion under Article 9 (2) of the GDPR apply. Article 9 (2) of the GDPR does not contain an exception

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

that the action was intentional (Article 83(2)(b) GDPR), and that the personal data are sensitive (Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). Share your comments here! Share

respect to section 83.2 (k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, section 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures," he says: "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k) of the Regulation

action (Article 83.2 b) Basic personal identifiers (name, surname, address) are affected, according to Article 83(2)(g) VII Furthermore, Article 83.7 of the

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

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

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

signifies cativa (article 83.2 b)  Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, surname, two, domicile), according to article 83.2 g) Therefore, based

punishable under Article 83(4)(a) GDPR. Assessing the circumstances that modify the responsibility contemplated in Article 83(2) GDPR, in this case, the

the infringement - Article 83(2)(b) - and the fact that the infringement involved the “basic identifiers” of the claimant - Article 83(2)(g) - to be aggravating

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

infractions (83.2 e) RGPD). - She has not obtained direct benefits (83.2 k) RGPD and 76.2.c) LOPDGDD). - The Respondent is not considered a large company

DPA assessed the appropriate sanctions in accordance with Article 83(2) GDPR and suggested a fine of approximately €67,000 (DKK 500,000). The DPA in Denmark

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

amount of the fine under Article 83(2) GDPR. The data subjects complains about the violation of its right of access (Article 15 GDPR) by the Istituto Nazionale

an infringement of Article 12(1) of the GDPR, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(5) GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 14(3) of the Dutch

framework for fines can be found in Art. 83 (4) DSGVO, which provides for a fine of up to 10 million euros or 2% of the turnover of the previous fiscal

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 to

the RGPD, when proceed, in a certain manner and within a specified period - Article 58. 2 d)-. In accordance with Article 83(2) of the RGPD, the measure

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

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

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

contemplated in article 83.2 of the GDPR, with respect to the infraction committed by violating that established in article 6.1 of the GDPR allows for a sanction

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

initiate a sanctioning procedure in accordance with Article 83(5)(a) GDPR against the defendant for alleged infringement of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Does the

unintentional but significant negligent action (article 83.2 b) Basic personal identifiers are affected, according to 83.2g) C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 -

imposed, taking into account the¬ relevant circumstances set out in Article 83.2 of the GDPR:(a) processing of the complainant’s data has been carried out locally;(b)

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

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

” Regarding section k) of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, article 76, “Sanctions and corrective measures” provides: "2. In accordance with the provisions

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

for 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

categories of data, cf. Article 32(1)(b) GDPR, Article 32(1)(d), Article 24 and Article 35, cf. Article 5. In May 2019, a municipality reported a personal data breach

connection with Article 5 paragraph 1 point c, Article 9 paragraph 1, Article 58 paragraph 2 point f, point g and point i and with Article 83 paragraph 2 and 3,

imposed a fine of €10000 aggravated by article 83(2)(b) GDPR (intentional or negligent character of the infringement) and article 83(2)(k) GDPR in relation

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 legal basis

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

of Laws of 2019, item 1781) and Article 57(1)(a), Article 83(1)-(2) and Article 83(6) in connection with Article 58(2)(e) and (i) of the Regulation of

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

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

relation to Article 6(1)(a) GDPR since the consent could not be considered valid. Finally, the DPA applied two aggravating circumstances of Article 83(2) GDPR:

1 lit. a), art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1-3 and art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) in connection with art. 33 paragraph. 1 and art. 34 sec. 1 and 2 of the

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

states that the party concerned violated Article 83(4)(a) GDPR in conjunction with [Article 32(1) GDPR. Article 32 (1) GDPRby failing, at least with gross

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

referred to in Article 83(2) of the RGPD, with with regard to the infringement committed in breach of the provisions of Article 13 thereof allows set a penalty

health of a large number of data subjects, i.e. all the patients of the Company itself (Article 4(1), no. 15 of the Regulation and Article 83(2)(a) and (g)

analyzes the criteria by Article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As to the nature and seriousness of the violation [article 83.2 a) of the GDPR], with regard to breaches

of personal data under Article 9(1) GDPR, explicit consent (Article 9(2)(a) GDPR) would have been necessary for part of the processing operations. In addition

for detecting information on the health of a few hundred data subjects (Article 83, paragraph 2, letters a) and g) of the Regulation); from the point of

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

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

SOLUCIONES ENERGÉTICAS, S.A., with NIF A85818797, for a violation of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of 50,000 euros (fifty

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

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

section 2 of said article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 may also be taken into account: a) The continuing

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 32 GDPR, p. 636 (Oxford University Press 2020). Jandt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 32 GDPR, margin number

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

elements in Article 83 The Norwegian Data Protection Authority has not sufficiently taken into account all relevant factors in Article 83 No. 2. The infringement

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

penalty, are as follows: Article 83 paragraph 1, 2 and 5 lit. a GDPR:Article 83, paragraph ,, 2 and 5 lit. a, GDPR: "Article 83 General conditions for imposing

contemplated in Article 83.2 of the GDPR, with respect to the infringement committed by violating the provisions of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, allows for a sanction

suggest the existence of a penalty for conduct under Article 83 GDPR should not be seen to preclude a further penalty under Article 84 GDPR.  For example, in

elements provided for in Article 83.2 of the GDPR:  As to the nature and seriousness of the violation (article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Restricted Training

(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)

for the violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. The AEPD considered that the fine was proportional, since the GDPR establishes that fines

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

accountability in Article 5(2) GDPR, paragraph (2) specifies further requirements in the general principle of transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, paragraph

contemplated in article 83.2 of the GDPR and the Article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to the offense committed by violating the established in article 5.1.f)

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

carries out a Data Protection Impact Assessment (Article 35 GDPR) or if a prior consultation before a DPA is needed under Article 36 GDPR. As a result, "the

Regulation’s sanctions framework through Article 83(4) GDPR. Article 83(4) GDPR provides that the infringement of Article 31 GDPR may be subject to administrative

section 2 of said article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 may also be taken into account: a) The continuing

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

Wind Tre had violated the following articles of the GDPR: Articles 5(1), 5(2), 6(1)(a), 7, 12(1), 12(2), 24 and 25. It subsequently fined Wind Tre 16,729

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

However, a controller may incur a fine if it wrongfully relies on that exception, in accordance with Article 83(5) GDPR. A controller subject to a restriction

analyzes the criteria set by Article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As to the nature and seriousness of the violation [article 83.2 a) of the GDPR], with regard to breaches

QUALITY-PROVIDER S.A., with NIF A87407243, for a infringement of Article 58.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of 20,000.00 euros

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 33 GDPR, p. 642-643 (Oxford University Press 2020). According to Bensoussan, the drafting of Article 33 GDPR drew inspiration

The Privacy Appeals Board assessed if a fine could be imposed as per Article 83(5) GDPR, cf. Article 83(2) GDPR, and in which case, how large it should

pursuant to Article 17(2) DPA Act. 9. Moreover, as regards the one-stop-shop mechanism, Article 56 GDPR states: "Without prejudice to Article 55, the supervisory

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

of the article 15 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, with a fine of €10,000 (ten thousand euros), and for a violation of article 17 of the

***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 Regulation

violation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Following a visit to the premises of two public bodies (the joint controllers)

criteria established in section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 may

32 sec. 2, art. 38 sec. 1, art. 39 sec. 1 lit. b and art. 39 sec. 2, art. 30 sec. 1 lit. d, as well as art. 83 sec. 1 - 3, art. 83 sec. 4 letter a and art

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE A.A.A., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 6 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, a fine of €10,000 (ten

different functions, a permissive function (Article 88(1) GDPR) and a conditional function (Article 88(2) GDPR). While Article 88(2) GDPR determines the scope

do so (Article 15.1 combined with Article 12.3. of GDPR as well as Article 12.2. of the GDPR (obligation to facilitate the exercise of rights) - a breach

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

had been no violation of Article 32(4) GDPR, and in the alternative, that: in accordance with the provisions of Article 83(2) GDPR, the BGN 1500 fine should

(Articles 58(2)(i) GDPR) & 83 GDPR) and, after having taken into consideration Article 83(2) GDPR's fine measuring principles and ARTICLE 29 Data Protection

Administrative offense (s) after: Article 5 (1) (a), Article 9 (1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 83 (1) and (5) (a) GDPR, OJ L 2016/119, 1 as amended

the principles found in Article 5 GDPR, in this case Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In addition, Persónuvernd highlighted Article 32 GDPR as operationalising the

Training refers to it in point 64, as well as in Chapter II.2, Section 2.2 of this decision. 2.2 Regarding the requirement to provide information in an "easily

course of the audit proceeding to remedy the breaches of Article 38(1) GDPR and Article 39(1)(b) GDPR. The CNPD noted however that these measures were taken

elements according to Article 83 GDPR, the DPA imposed a fine in the amount of €18,000 for a violation of Article 5, 9, 32 GPDR and Article 157 of the Italian

limitation of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and against the provisions of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6(1)(f) GDPR in conjunction with Article 6(4) GDPR. Further

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

analyse the criteria set out in Article 83.2 of the GDPR. 61. As regards the nature and seriousness of the breach (Article 83(2)(a) of the RGPD), it points out

accordance with Article 83 of the GDPR: Due to this administrative violation, the following penalty is imposed in accordance with Article 83 of the GDPR: Fine of

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

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

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

the processing of personal data in accordance with art. 4 item 2 of the GCC. 2. Article 5 of the GPA sets out the processing principles governing processing

on FPDAL Article 5, Part One, Clause 2, Article 23, GDPR Article 58, Clause 2, subparagraph i), AAL, Article 115, Part One, Clause 4, Article 151 Paragraph

infringed Articles 6.1 (a) and 5.1 (a) of the GDPR, in breach of Articles (a) and (a) of the GDPR¬, in accordance with Article 71 (1) (a) and (b) respectively

Articles 24 and 25 GDPR. The Bulgarian Data Protection Authority (CPDP) found a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR since the personal

provide an explanation, or raise issues under Article 83(2) GDPR that the DPA would assess when imposing a fine. On 31 January 2022, the controller replied

S.L., with NIF B67421867, for a infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, with a a fine of 30,000 euros (thirty thousand

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

***ADDRESS.1, with CIF ***CIF.1, for a infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, with a fine of FIVE HUNDRED € (500 euros)

purposes of the GDPR and that the sanction to be imposed should be graduated with the aggravation of negligence Article 83(2)(b) GDPR, since the controller

violating Article 13(1) GDPR and Article 13(2) GDPR. Accordingly, the AZOP decided to impose an administrative fine on each company in line with Article 83(2)

as a grave infringement (Article 72(1) LOPDGDD). Due to these violations the AEPD issued a fine of €70,000 based on Article 83(2) GDPR and Article 76(2)(b)

art. 58 sec. 1 lit. a) and lit. e) and art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i) in connection with Art. 83 sec. 1-3 and art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) and art. 83 sec. 5 lit. e) Regulation

11, 148, 150, and Article 5, Chapter IV and Article 83. 4 2.8 Chapter IV, Section 2 addresses security of personal data. Article 32 GDPR provides: 1. Taking

and 14 GDPR), access (Article 15 GDPR), rectification (Article 16 GDPR), erasure (Article 17 GDPR), restriction of processing (Article 18 GDPR), notification

by the SA, (iii) has been fined under Article 83 GDPR or (iv) is subject to a penalty under Article 84 GDPR. If a data subject’s personal data is otherwise

that permit the identification of a person (Article 83.2(b)) • Basic personal identifiers are affected (Article 83.2 g) Therefore, in accordance with the

defendant must take a number of factors into account. These factors are listed in Article 83, second paragraph, of the GDPR and Article 7 of the Fining Policy

EDREAMS, S.L., with NIF B61965778, for a infringement of article 12 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, a warning. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

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

of 2019, item 1781), as well as Art. 58 sec. 2 lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1-3, art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) and art. 83 sec. 5 lit. e) in connection with Art. 31 and

Journal of the European Union. 2. It shall apply from 25 May 2018. There is no relevant recital for Article 99 GDPR. Article 99 GDPR sets out the dates of the

that the controller had breached Article 9 GDPR. The DPA imposed a sanction according to Article 83(5)(a) GDPR and Article 72(1)(e) of the Spanish Data Protection

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

DIGITAL, S.L.U., with NIF B11514445, -for a violation of article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, with an administrative fine of 20,000

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

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

date of effect under Article 94 GDPR. In order to ensure a sense of continuity within the regulatory framework, Article 94(2) GDPR provides that any reference

of: 1. Article 5 (1) (a) and (2) and Article 6 (1) GDPR; 2. Article 5, Article 24 (1) and 25 (1) and (2) GDPR; 3. Article 12 paragraph 1, paragraph 2, paragraph

with a supervisory authority (Article 77 of the GDPR), the procedural rules of Personal Data Protection Act (Zakon o varstvu osebnih podatkov (ZVOP-2)) apply

years as per Article 45(3) GDPR, and subject to regular reporting, which Article 97(2) GDPR provides for. The third paragraph of Article 97 GDPR, obliges the

contractual clauses); Article 36(2) GDPR (prior consultation); Article 40 GDPR (codes of conduct); Article 42 GDPR (certification); Article 46 GDPR (standard data

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

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

Chair represents the Board (Article 68(2) GDPR) and is responsible for directing the work of the secretariat (Article 75(2) GDPR). Other specific responsibilities

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

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

down in Article 83 (2) GDPR: As aggravating factors: • In this case, negligent action is not intentional, but it is significant (Article 83 (¬2) (b)). •

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

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

referred to in Article 64. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93(2). Recital 167:

processing still needs to rely on a legal basis from Article 6(1) GDPR and comply with the principles enshrined in Article 5 GDPR. Additionally, the processing

pursuent to Article 6 GDPR. In determining the amount of the fine, the DPA considered aggravating factors, as stipulated in Article 83(2)(a) GDPR, and mitigating

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

accordance with the general principles referred to a / 'article 83 of Regulation 2016/679 ”. 3. Article 83 of the GDPR is read as follows: "1. Each supervisory authority

as well as Art. 57 sec. 1 lit. a) and h), art. 58 sec. 2 lit. e) and lit. i), art. 83 sec. 1-2 and art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) in connection with Art. 33 paragraph

Europol Regulation. Noting that a broader reading of Article 98 GDPR is supported by the wording of Article 2(3) GDPR, which provides that: 'For the processing

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

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

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

definition for "processing" in Article 4(2) GDPR). If data is been made public, the applicable provision is Article 17(2) GDPR, provided that all requirements

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

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

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

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

Pauly, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 71 GDPR, margin number 2 (C.H. Beck 2021, 3rd edition). Dix in Kühling, Buchner, GDPR BDSG, Article 71 GDPR, margin number 6 (C

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

SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S.A., with NIF A28141935, for a violation of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, with a fine of 30,000 euros

surveillance, (2) breach of Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(f), Article 5(2), Article 28(1), (3) and (10), Article 29, Article 83(1), (2), (3) and (5) in

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 legal basis

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

The authority addressed under Article 66(1)-(2) GDPR is the CSA within the meaning of Article 4(22) GDPR. In contrast, Article 66(3) refers to “any supervisory

was a violation of Article 13 GDPR and issued a warning to the controller. The AEPD took into account the following aggravating factors (Article 83 (2)

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

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

establishes a series of objectives that are similar to the ones laid out by Article 50 GDPR. Article 50 GDPR is divided in two different parts: letters (a) and

such a 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

Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 39 GDPR, p. 714 (Oxford University Press 2020). Bergt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 39 GDPR, margin number

through Article 15 GDPR. See, Kamann, Braun, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition)

aggravating factor according to Article 83(2)(e) GDPR. The decision of the DPA could be seen as a confirmation that Article 15 generally prevails over specific

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

pursuant to Article 92(5) GDPR. Article 92(5) GDPR imposes a further condition for the delegation of power, in line with Article 290(2)(b) TFEU. A delegated

accountability obligation enshrined in Article 5(2) GDPR. This theory is not totally convincing. In light of Article 5(2) GDPR, a reversal of burden of proof for

that under Article 82 (1) and (2) GDPR, any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of a violation of the GDPR is entitled

order to ensure a possibility to trigger a binding dispute resolution procedure in accordance with Article 65 GDPR. Article 64(2) GDPR allows any SA, the

requirement of a proper demonstration under the fairness and transparency principle (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR). Article 11(2) GDPR provides for a peculiar informative

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 a broad

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

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

to in Article 61(6) GDPR. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 93(2) GDPR. → You

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

ng, Article 62 GDPR, margin number 11 (Beck 2018, 2nd edition). Riccio, Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e normativa privacy – Commentario, Article 62 GDPR (Wolters

expression under Article 85(2) GDPR, some German states have established separate SAs for broadcasting companies. Furthermore, Article 91(2) GDPR allows for

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

senate of 15. Dezember 1983 - 1 BvR 209/83, 1 BvR 269/83, 1 BvR 362/83, 1 BvR 420/83, 1 BvR 440/83, 1 BvR 484/83 (in DE) (Abstract in EN) - ECLI:DE:BVerfG:1983:rs19831215

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

sec. 1 lit. a) and h), art. 58 sec. 2 lit. e) and i), art. 83 sec. 1 and sec. 2, art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) in connection with Art. 34 sec. 1, 2 and 4 of Regulation

The DPA fined the controller €45,000 under Article 83(2) GDPR, Article 83(3) GDPR and Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news

portability; (i) Article 6 (1) (a) or Article 9 (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation; In the case of data processing based on paragraph 1 (a), the consent

minimization (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR). Under Article 30(1)(f) GDPR, where possible, the controller provides a "general

consistency mechanism under Article 65(2)(1) GDPR and the adoption of the EDPS’s rules of procedure under Article 72(2) GDPR. Notably, each EDPB member

the health of a significant number of data subjects (150,000/200,000 outpatient accesses) (Article 83(2)(a) GDPR and Article 83(2)(g) GDPR). It also considered

SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S.A., with NIF A28141935, for a violation of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, with a fine of 30,000 euros

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

at which a controller has a duty to notify the competent supervisory authority of such a breach. Article 34(1) GDPR differs from Article 33 GDPR. Instead

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

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

Articles 13 GDPR and 7 GDPR respectively? To determine the amount of the penalty, the AEPD took into account three criteria in Article 83(2) GDPR: unintentional

elements provided for in Article 83.2 of the GDPR:  As to the nature and seriousness of the violation (article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Restricted Training

and jurisdiction provisions (Articles 47(1)(b), 47(2)(d), 47(2)(e), 47(2)(g), 47(2)(i), 47(2)(l) GDPR); a duty for the EU BCR member to accept responsibility

accordance with the article 83.1 of the GDPR. In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, to observe the provisions of article 83.2 of the RGPD

In an Article 60 GDPR procedure, the Spanish DPA reprimanded a controller for the failure to meet a data deletion request under Article 17 GDPR in a timely

from Articles 13(2)(b) and 14(2)(c) GDPR. However, Article 21(4) GDPR specifies that the right to object under Article 21(1) and 21(2) GDPR (i.e. the right

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

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

According to Article 80(2) GDPR, where legislated for by Member States, this right extends to Articles 77, 78 and 79 GDPR, but not Article 82 GDPR. This exclusion

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

the GDPR, where applicable, in a certain way and within a specified period (art. 58.2 d)). According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the

be true also under Article 91 GDPR”. See, Tosoni, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University

subjects with the information listed in Article 33(3)(b), Article 33(3)(c), and Article 33(3)(d), as Article 34(2) GDPR prescribes. Therefore, the DPA decided

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

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

against a 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

Beck, 2018, 2nd edition). We refer, in that respect, to the Commentary on Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. Spiecker et al., GDPR Article-by-Article Commentary (2023)

processing (Article 36(3)(c) GDPR); the contact details of the Data Protection Officer (DPO) (Article 36(3)(d) GDPR); a copy of the DPIA (Article 36(3)(e)

defined by Article 4(2) GDPR), because Article 81(1) GDPR explicitly refers to 'processing by the same controller or processor'. As a result, the Article does

DI-2021-4355 5(6) Date:2023-01-19 Choice of intervention Article 58(2) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR give IMY the authority to impose an administrative fine

elements provided for in Article 83.2 of the GDPR:  As to the nature and seriousness of the violation (article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Restricted Training

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

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 right

with other controllers or where a processing operation is carried out on behalf of a controller. Article 26 GDPR goes a substantial way towards empowering

occupation. For example, Article 52(2) GDPR requires SA members to remain free from external influence and Article 52(3) GDPR entails a prohibition of incompatible

subject only made a "request for a copy" not a "request under Article 15 GDPR". The controller clearly violated Article 5(1)(a) and 12(1) GDPR. The addressee

Member States, in Articles 83(1) to (6) of the GDPR. Second, Article 83(2)(b) GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 83(3) GDPR, both describe the intentional

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

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

Articles 57(1)(a), 58(2)(i) in conjunction with Articles 24(1), 31, 32(1) and (2), 34(1), and 83(1) and (2) and 83(4)(a) of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the

entering the contract, Article 22(2)(a) GDPR does not mention this additional aspect. In any case, the application of Article 22(2)(a) GDPR is always subjected

to [find] a violation of Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR due to a failure to respond to an access request that was submitted around a month after

analyzes the criteria set by Article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As to the nature and seriousness of the violation (article 83.2 a) of the GDPR), with regard to concerns

no. [...] conducted with Company A 16/23  As to the nature and seriousness of the violation (article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Restricted Training notes

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

sanctions for infringements in the Member States. Recital 12: Article 16(2) TFEU Mandate Article 16(2) TFEU mandates the European Parliament and the Council to

of the GDPR, where applicable, in a certain manner and within a specified period -article 58.2 d). According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the GDPR

violated Article 24(1) GDPR by not fulfilling its responsibilities as a controller under the GDPR. Pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR, the DPA imposed

principle (see hereunder Article 65(2) GDPR) to adopt a decision under Article 65 GDPR is reached, since Article 64 GDPR only requires a simple majority. The

fine are set out in Article 83 of the General Data Protection Regulation. contained in Article. In the event of a breach of Article 5 of the General Data

situation described under Article 11(2) GDPR and Article 12(2) second sentence, concerns situations were the personal data that relates to a data subject cannot

the GDPR (Article 3)’, 12 November 2019 (Version 2.1), p. 6 (available here). EDPB, ‘Guidelines 3/2018 on the territorial scope of the GDPR (Article 3)’

administrative fine in accordance with the factors set out in Article 83(2) GDPR. They concluded that a fine would not be necessary, proportionate or dissuasive

under Article 9 GDPR or data relating to criminal convictions and offences under Article 10 GDPR. Article 37(2) GDPR allows for the designation of a single

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)

imposition of measures, according to article 58.2 d) of the GDPR. Along with it and In accordance with article 58.2 of the GDPR, it was also indicated that the

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

with the examination procedure under Article 93(2) GDPR. Article 40(11) GDPR stipulates that the EDPB shall keep a register on “all approved codes of conduct

in Article 63 GDPR. Article 35(7) GDPR sets out a list of minimum requirements which shall be dealt with in the DPIA. To begin with, under Article 35(7)(a)

There is a slightly different concept of "explicit consent" in Articles 9(1)(a), 22(2)(c) and 49(1)(a) GDPR. See the commentary on Article 9(1)(a) GDPR for

administrative fines as provided for in Article 83 of the GDPR, except against state or municipalities. Article 83 of the GDPR provides that each supervisory authority

employee of the entity - infringes Article 32. 2 and 32.4 of the RGPD, an infringement punishable under Article 83.4.a of the GDPR. Assessing the circumstances

infringement as follows: Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR Article 6 of the GDPR The DPC found that Airbnb did not validly rely on Article 6 of the GDPR as the legal basis

authorisation". Article 45(2) GDPR sets out a number of criteria that the Commission must take into account while considering the adequacy of a third country

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

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

been provided, where: (a) the processing is based on consent pursuant to point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2) or on a contract pursuant to

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

laid down in Article 57 GDPR. The powers of SAs are both investigative and corrective, which are set out in Article 58 GDPR. Article 52(2) GDPR requires two

the GDPR or General Article 5 (1) (a) and (b) of the Data Protection Regulation, - Article 5 (2) of the GDPR, - Article 6 (1) of the GDPR, - Article 12

effects (article 83.2.f of the GDPR) 4.1.12. Likewise, the Contentious Chamber did not take into consideration the cooperation of X (article 83.2 f). From

listed in Article 83(2) GDPR. The Supreme Court further noted that in the case of an intentional or negligent breach of several provisions of the GDPR, Article

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

ofcontroller (article 4.7 of the GDPR), the scope of the GDPR (article3.1 of the GDPR), the right to erasure (article 17 of the GDPR) and its powers (article 58.2of

forth in Article 58.2 of the GDPR. Among the powers to impose an administrative fine in accordance with Article 83 of the GDPR - Article 58.2 i) of the

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

fine, the criteria specified in the same Article 83." 112. Under Article 83 of the GDPR, as referred to in Article 20(III) of the Data Protection Act: "1

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

infringement of article 35 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4.a) of the GDPR and article 73.t) of the LOPDGDD” "For the purposes specified in the art. 64.2 b) of

therefore breaching Article 6 GDPR, as well as Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Thirdly, Article 30 GDPR stipulates that the controller must keep a register of processing

this case a ‘minor breach’ under Article 83(2) GDPR. Hence, the DPA decided that it was sufficient in the situation at hand to simply issue a reprimand

the GDPR and, in particular, to adopt a measure under Article 58 GDPR. The Administrative Court of Wiesbaden referred a question to the CJEU: When a DPA

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

regard to the circumstances contemplated under Article 83.2 of the GDPR and taking into account Article 83.1, is hereby being served with an administrative

information necessitated by Article 13 GDPR. The Italian DPA found a breach of Article 13 GDPR, Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. This ruling was on

security measures constituted a breach of Article 25 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR, this was on the following grounds: Article 32 GDPR imposes an obligation upon

contrary to Article 32(1)(d) GDPR. When calculating the financial penalties, the DPA considered the factors described in Article 83(2) GDPR to decide to

pursuant of Article 83(5)(b) GDPR, which it considered a high gravity fine. The DPA also fined the controller €200,000 pursuant of Article 83(4)(a) GDPR, for

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

powers (Article 58, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the GDPR). The DSB is a supervisory authority within the meaning of Article 51 GDPR Article 51, GDPR (see also

violated, the Court did not see a reason to reduce the fine on the basis of Article 83(2) GDPR and Article 6(1) and 6(3)(a) ECHR. Thus, the Court held that

compliance with the GDPR and be able to demonstrate said compliance (Article 5(2) and Article 24 GDPR). It is one of the corner stones of the GDPR. The defendant

of a "refuse all" button "next to an "accept all" button be considered a breach of GDPR Article 4(11) and Article 7, read in conjunction with GDPR Article

in violation of Article 12(3) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has

criteria established in the section 2 of the aforementioned article. 2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, also

data in breach of Article 32(1) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has

comply with Article 5(2) GDPR. The DPA determined that the controller violated Article 15 GDPR. The DPA stated that Article 15(1)(c) GDPR must be interpreted

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

provided for in Article 2, h) of Directive 95/46/EC. In particular, under these new requirements, article 4, paragraph 11 of the GDPR requires that the

without a legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR, and special category personal data without a valid exemption from the prohibition in Article 9(1) GDPR. Grindr

(art. 5.1 a) GDPR); the purpose limitation principle (Article 5.1 b) GDPR) and the principle of minimum data processing (Article 5.1 c) GDPR) and this

has not violated the article 15 of the GDPR, infringement typified in article 83.5 a) of the GDPR. IV. Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR "Security of treatment"

sanction under Article 83 GDPR and therefore imposed a €2,000 fine for breaching Articles 12(3) and 12(4) in conjunction with Article 17(1) GDPR, as well as

monetary penalty. Article 83(2) GDPR 56. The Commissioner has considered the factors set out in Article 83(2) GDPR in deciding whether to impose a penalty and

NANDIVALE, S.L., with NIF B66070012, for a violation of the Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, a fine of 10,000 € (ten thousand euros)

processor (article 83.2 e) of the GDPR. The assessment carried out by the Agency only takes into account the violations imposed for violation of article 6.1 of

with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 32.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4, a) of the GDPR, a fine of €2,000 (two a thousand euros). THIRD:

For the intentional infringement of Article 25(1) GDPR and Article 5(1)(a), (c), and (e) GDPR, the authority imposed a pecuniary penalty of €14,385,000,

violated Article 12, in conjunction with Article 17 GDPR. The DPA considered the elements of Article 83(2) GDPR and determined that this was a minor infringement

responsibility – article 5.2. of the GDPR) and to implement all the measures necessary for this purpose (Article 24 of the GDPR). 26. Pursuant to Article 5.1.a) of

acted in breach of Article 12(2) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that IMY has the

within the meaning of Article 4 (8) GDPR. Consequently, Article 28 (3) GDPR does not apply application. 86. With regard to Article 31 GDPR, the defendant states

follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has the power to impose administrative fines in accordance with Article 83. Depending

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

therefore held that the controller violated Article 5(1)(f), Article 5(2), Article 24 and Article 32 as it did not conduct a proper identity verification and had

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 respectively. SIXTH:

50,000 as a 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

administrative fine of €2,500, pursuant to Article 83(2) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is a machine translation

regulation - Article 32, paragraph (1) and its points a)-b) and paragraph (2), - Paragraph 2 of Article 5. The Authority examined whether the imposition of a data

follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has the power to impose administrative fines in accordance with Article 83. Depending

of the GDPR, where applicable, in a certain manner and within a specified period -article 58.2 d)-. According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the

violating article 25 of the GDPR, and a fine of 1,000,000 euros for the violation of article 32 of the RGPD, both classified in the article 83.4 of the

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

aforementioned article. 2. According to provided for in article 83.2.k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 may also take into account: a) The continuous nature

elements. Infringement of Article 6 and 9 GDPR qualifies for the maximum amount for administrative fines as set out in Article 83(5) GDPR: 20,000,000 € or 4%

data in breach of Article 12(3) of the GDPR. Choice of corrective measure It follows from Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(2) of the GDPR that the IMY has

processed only if Article 6 (1) of the GDPR in addition to a specific legal basis, a circumstance within the meaning of Article 9 (2) of the GDPR which allows

same Article 83. Article 83 of the GDMP provides thatEach enforcement authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this Article for violations

relevant- (a) to the extent that the notice concerns a matter to which the GDPR applies, the matters listed in Article 83(1) and (2) of the GDPR. 17. The

urgency procedure, the DPA imposed on OpenAI a temporary limitation of processing pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. Such limitation concerns all processing

DI-2020-11373 2(23) Date: 2023-06-30 2.2.1 Applicable regulations, etc. ................................................... .....9 2.2.2 The Privacy Protection

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

the Court held that a controller will be held liable for a breach committed by a processor of paragraphs 4 to 6 of Article 83 GDPR, intentionally or negligently

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

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

for violation of article 32 of the GDPR The balance of the circumstances contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD and the article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with

for violation of article 6.1 and 32.1 of the RGPD, typified in the article 83.5.a) and article 83.4.a) of the aforementioned RGPD, with a penalty of €50

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

high (article 76.2.b) of the LOPDGDD in relation to with article 83.2.k). Considering the exposed factors, in order to decide on the imposition of a administrative

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

and (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)

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

with article 83.5.a) of the RGPD and for the purposes of prescription in the article 72.1.e) of the LOPDGDD. -13, in accordance with article 83.5.a) of

contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD, with regarding the infraction committed by violating the provisions of article 6.1 of the GDPR allows a fine of 70

line with the GDPR were not adequate to the nature, context and risks of the processing carried out (breach of Article 5(2) and Article 24 GDPR). In determining

INSTITUTIONS, with NIF S2813060G, for a violation of Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.4 of the GDPR, a warning sanction. Once the proposed

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

***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

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

GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR and Article 25(1) GDPR by not implementing the data subject's access request and failing to inform

relevant- (a) to the extent that the notice concerns a matter to which the GDPR applies, the matters listed in Article 83(1) and (2) of the GDPR. 21. The

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

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

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

DPA fined a company €38,800 for unlawfully disclosing personal data from a surveillance footage, thus breaching Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6. The company

initiate a sanctioning procedure against the claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH:

same article 83. 40. Article 83 of the GDPR provides: 1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this Article for

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

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

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

cases must be decided within a reasonable time. Article 83 (2) (a) to (k) of the Privacy Ordinance provides guidance on a whole range of factors that must

justified imposition of a fine. In this context, the Authority will comply with Article 83 (2) of the GDPR and Infotv. 75 / A. §-the considered all the

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

did not react either. GDPR applicable? (Article 3(2) GDPR) The DPA held that the GDPR was applicable pursuant of Article 3(2) GDPR. Because the controller

data are part of a filing system, in line with Article 2(1) GDPR. Article 4(6) GDPR defines a filing system as "any structured set of personal data, which

imposed a fine of €5,000 for the violation of Article 13 GDPR. With regard to the appointment of a DPO, the DPA recalled that Article 37(1)(b) GDPR provides

in breach of Article 5, Article 6, Article 8, Article 9, and Article 25 GDPR. Consequently, the DPA urgently imposed upon the controller a temporary limitation

personal data of data subjects guaranteed by Article 44 GDPR and consequently breached Article 44 GDPR. The DPA issued a fine of 300,000 SEK (approx. €25,000)

on which the processing is based pursuant to point (a) of Article 6(1) or point (a) of Article 9(2) and there is no other legal basis for the processing

prove compliance with Article 5(2) GDPR. The DSB then ascertained whether the controller could lawfully rely on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as a legal basis, which

that such a mistake of manipulation, the if applicable, constitutes a security breach and as such a data breach within the meaning of Article 4.12 of the

complete information by means of a link to this information. This was a violation of Article 12. Based on Article 13(2)(a) GDPR and WP29 guidelines on transparency

stroke a balance between freedom of information and right to privacy. Health data are sensitive data covered by Article 9 GDPR. According to Article 137 of

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

Chapter 2 § 6 in the Instrument of Government. The right to free speech is secured in Chapter 2 § 1 in the Instrument of Government and Chapter 2 § 1 of

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

infringement of Article 5.1 c) AVG has been proven. f)Transparent information (Article 5.1(a); Article 12.1. and Article 13.1. and 13.2. AVG) 43.The complainant

to provide as evidence a recording of a call where the caller is identified as A.A.A., provides the contact email ***EMAIL.2 and a meter reading is provided

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

52(1), Article 54(2) and Article 82(2) GDPR. Most importantly, the controller challenged two of the three findings of the DPA, which had led to the fine: the

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

to data portability ; (c) where the processing is based on Article 6(1)(a) or Article 9(2)(a), the existence of the right to withdraw consent at any time

violated Article 21 GDPR due to unsolicited political propaganda sent after the data subject exercised his right to object. A citizen sent a letter to

of the possibility of lodging a complaint with a supervisory authority and seeking a judicial remedy (Article 12 (4) GDPR).This deadline may be extended

Regulation. Pursuant to Article 75/A of the GDPR, the Authority shall exercise its powers under Article 83(2) to (6) of the GDPR taking into account the

specified in Article 83 of the GDPR. 92. 92. Firstly, the restricted formation emphasises that, in this case, the criterion provided for in Article 83(2)(a) of

that the letter in question referred to Article 58(1)(a) of the GDPR and Article 5:16 in conjunction with Article 5:17 of the Awb does not make this any

that a 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

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

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

processing of data concerning health laid down in Article 9(1) GDPR is possible under Article 9(2)(h) GDPR) in a case such as the present one, are there further

conferred on it by the provisions of Article 58 of the GDPR and Article 15 of Law 4624/2019. 2. As Article 5 of the GDPR defines the processing principles

approved appeal of Article 5(1)(a), Article 12(1), Article 13(1) and Article 13(2). The appeal for Article 5(1)(c), Article 6(1) and Article 8 GDPR was not approved

DPA found a violation of Article 12(3) in relation to Article 15 GDPR. The Garante hence applied an administrative fine as per Article 83(5) GDPR. The amount

bear such a burden. The data subject, in the context of an action pursuant to Article 82 GDPR, shall prove a GDPR infringement, the existence of a damage

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

contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD and the article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to the infraction committed by violating the established in article 5.1

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

contemplated in article 83.2 of the RGPD and the Article 76.2 of the LOPDGDD, with respect to the infraction committed by violating the established in article 5.1

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

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

to Articles 58, paragraph 2, letter i) and 83 of the RGPD and Article 166 of the Code, has the corrective power to "impose a pecuniary administrative sanction

data processing on a large scalethe by the number of clients it has (article 83.2 a)Basic personal identifiers are affected (article 83.2 g)Therefore, in

instead of a fine, although the sanction is still mentionning that the infringement at stake is subject to a fine according to Article 83.5 GDPR, in the lights

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

infringements (83.2 e) RGPD). - It has not obtained direct benefits (83.2 k) RGPD and 76.2.c) LOPDGDD). - The claimed entity is not considered a large company

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

fine of 2.500 € for the violation of the principle of integrity and confidentiality, pursuant to Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

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

data under Article 9(2)(a) GDPR and there was no other legal basis for the processing under Article 9(2) GDPR. Consequently, the DSB issued a fine of EUR

k) of the mentioned article 83.2 RGPD.Consequently, the following facts have been taken into account as aggravating factors:-Art. 83.2 b) RGPD: the intentionality

positively to the request of the Complainant in accordance with Article 12(2) GDPR and Article 15 GDPR. The HDPA imposed an administrative fine of EUR 20,000 on

outside it, 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

Consequently, based on Article 83(5)(a) GDPR, the hospital was fined to pay a fine of EUR 30.000,00 for violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Corrective measures

Ordinance, Article 83 No. 5, cf. Article 83 No. 2, an infringement fee must be imposed for a breach of the Personal Protection Ordinance as a result of

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

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

review the relevant conditions in the Privacy Ordinance, Article 83 no.2: 4.2.2. Article 83 (2) (a): Grade, severity andthe duration of the infringement,

but it signifies identified catives (article 83.2 b)  Basic personal identifiers -image- are affected (art 83.2 g) Therefore, based on the foregoing,

Protection Agency sanction A.A.A., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article 6 of the RGPD, classified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, with a fine of €10,000 (ten

Laws of 2019, item 1781), Article 83 (1)-(3), Article 83 (5)(e) in connection with Article 31, Article 58 (1)(e), Article 58 (2)(i) of Regulation EU 2016/679

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

the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, the DPA issued a reprimand to the controller

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

provide information and allow access to personal data according to Article 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The controller did not comply. Since the data controller did

referred to in Article 83.2 of the RGPD, with respect to the infringement committed by violating the provisions of Article 6 thereof, allows for a penalty of

accordance with Article 72(1)(a) LOPDGDD and falls under the criteria defined in article 83(5)(a) GDPR where a company can be fined up to €2 million, or in

which are typified in article 83.4.a). V The violation of articles 32, 33 and 34 of the RGPD are criminalized in Article 83.4(a) of the said GPRS in the

according to Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and to maintain a record of the processing activities under its responsibility according to Article 30(1) GDPR

RGPD, when proceed, in a certain way and within a specified period - article 58. 2 d) -. According to the provisions of article 83.2 of the RGPD, the measure

carried out by the claimed (article 83.2. a) of the RGPD). - The intentionality or negligence of the infringement (article 83.2. B) of the RGPD). - Basic

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

their data under Article 15 GDPR? What is the meaning of the inclusion of a data subject's phone number in the "opt-out" record of Article 11(2) Law 3471/2006

Secondly, under Article 83 of the GDPR: "1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this article for violations

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

B12983292, for an infringement of article 32.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the RGPD, a penalty of € 2,000 (two thousand euros). THIRD: NOTIFY

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

light of Article 83(2) and recital 148 of the Rules of Procedure and that, therefore, it may be sufficient to admonish Iliad, pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) of

under Article 35(7) GDPR, for not complying with the principle of transparency under Article 5(1) GDPR and for not anonymising the data under Article 25(1)

are prescribed in regarding the violation of article 32 of the GDPR. On the other hand, article 83.5, section a) of the RGPD, under the heading “Conditions

i, cf. article 83. Violation of article 32 can be sanctioned with a fee, cf. article 83 no. 4 letter a. The same applies to violations of Article 24, cf

procedural law a successful complainant is not a party to the penal procedure, when a penalty under the GDPR is imposed. A complainant has succeed in a complaints

conditions of Article 9(2) is fulfilled, in addition to any one of the conditions of Article 6 GDPR. In this case, the controller claimed to have a legitimate

according to ***URL.2 - gads, expiring on November 2, 2021 and for advertising purposes according to ***URL.2 - _ga, expiring on 2 November 2021 and for

violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Section 3 of the Finnish Act on the Protection of Privacy in Working Life. As a result

the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, a warning sanction for an infringement of Article 14 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD

data controller a notice pursuant to Article 58(2)(b) of the General Data Protection Regulation and an order pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) of the General

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

2019 that it was operating. Following Article 83(5)(a)GDPR, read in the lights of Recital (148) GDPR, the AEPD issued a reprimand to the owner of the video

NIF P3120800B, for an infringement of article 5.1.a) of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, a warning sanction. SECOND: NOTIFY this

defendant is defined in Articles 83.4.a) and 83.4.b) respectively. 83.5.a) of the RGPD, precepts that they establish: Article 83.4: "Violations of the following

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 EUR

negligent action, but significant (article 83.2 b) - Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, surname, address) (article 83.2 g) -The evident link between

The AEPD issued a Spanish City Council with a warning of an infringement of Article 5(1)(c) pursuant to Article 83(5) over installed surveillance cameras

with NIF B01528736, for a violation of Article 58.2 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of two thousand euros (2,000 euros). SECOND:

Protection, pursuant to Article 83(3) and Article 83(4)(a) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679, in conjunction with Article 103 of the Personal Data

the respondent, by the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: Formal notification of the agreement

whichever is higher, is applied. With reference to the elements listed in Article 83(2) of the Regulation for the purposes of the application of the pecuniary

with Article 31, Article 58(1)(e) in connection with Article 83(1-3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council

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

significant (article 83.2 b). -Basic personal identifiers are affected (name, a number of identification, the line identifier) (article 83.2 g). -Any offense

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

RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE A.A.A., with NIF ***NIF.1, for an infraction of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, a fine of €1,000 (one

co-ownership of Mrs. B.B.B. and Mrs. A.A.A.. The relationship of Ms. A.A.A. and his family with AUTOMÓVILES FERSÁN, SA from a Chronological point of view is

infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with the provisions of Article 77.2 of the LOPDGDD

penalty type of the Article 83.5.a, RGPD. IV In determining the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions of articles 83.1 and 83.2 of the RGPD, precepts

Moreover, following an infringement of Article 12(3) GDPR, as explained above, under the provisions of Article 83 of the GDPR, I take into account the following

Guarantee of Digital Rights (Article 32.2). In determining the fine, the following aggravating factors under Article 83 GDPR were considered: unintentional

typified in article 83.4 of the RGPD, with a warning. -For an infringement of Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4 of the RGPD, with a warning

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