Search results

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

Category:Article 83 GDPR The wording “infringements of this Regulation” in Article 83(1) GDPR is slightly imprecise. In fact, Article 83(5)(d) GDPR also provides

deadline. Therefore, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 58(1) and Article 83(5)(e) GDPR. The DPA thus fined the controller €300. The Romanian DPA

provisions of Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(f), and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR) and €50 (for violating Article 58(1)(a), 58(1)(e) and Article 83(5)(e) GDPR). Thus, the

basis in Article 6 GDPR. Neither consent nor any other legal basis were applicable. Consequently, pursuant to the Articles 83(5)(a) and 83(5)(e), the DPA

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

Control SA violated the GDPR. The DPA highlighted that failing to provide such information upon request was in breach of Article 83(5)(e) in conjuncture with

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

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

infringement of article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, in an initial assessment, the The following factors are considered to be concurrent: - No direct benefits (83.2 k) RGPD

non-compliance with this measure, the sanction referred to in Article 83, paragraph 5, letter e) of the Regulation shall be applied at the administrative level

had violated the provisions of Article 83(5)(e) GDPR, in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR by not granting the information

provide the information requested by the DPA violated Article 58(1) GDPR and Article 83(5)(e) GDPR. In conclusion, the Romanian DPA fined the controller

Romanian DPA found that the data controller has violated the provisions of Article 83 (5)(e), by not responding to the Romanian DPA's request of information, during

result, the controller was found in breach of GDPR Article 58(1) and was fined under Article 83(5)(e) GDPR approximately EUR 4,000 (RON 19795.6) and was

responding to the DPA's request for information, Dreamtime Call violated Article 85(3)(e) GDPR. The DPA fined Dreamtime Call approximately €2000 (RON 9.852,2),

to provide the requested information, in violation of Articles 83(5)(e) and 58(1)(a) and (e), and asked for the relevant information to be sent within five

provisions of art. 83 para. (5) lit. e) of the General Regulation on Data Protection and violation of the provisions of art. 83 para. (5) lit. b) of the General

liability in Article 83, Clause 5, Sub-paragraph e) of GDPR. 4.9. The official finds that the SIA is guilty of the violation provided for in Article 83, Clause

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 of the

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 art. 58 section 1 lit. e) Regulation of the

BDSG, Article 5 GDPR, margin number 56 (C.H. Beck 2020) Resta, in Riccio, Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e Normativa Privacy - Commentario, Article 5 GDPR (Wolters

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

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

technical and organisational measures (e.g. Article 25 (1) and (2), Article 28(1), Article 32(1) GDPR, Article 89(1) GDPR). These measures can also be regarded

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

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

decision, subject to an administrative sanction from the Garante under Article 83(5)(e) GDPR if the order is not complied with. Although the decision textually

all sanctions mentioned in Chapter VIII GDPR, i.e. the damages under Article 82 GDPR and fines under Article 83 GDPR. In any case, should fines for conduct

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 the

contrast to Article 23(1)(e) GDPR, which sets out strict requirements for the Union or Member State's law restricting GDPR rights, Article 18(2) GDPR does not

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

leeway exists only in cases of Article 64(2) GDPR but not the context of Article 70(2) GDPR. According to Article 70(3) GDPR, the EDPB is obligated to “forward

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

personal data. The entity can rely on Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. Equally to Article 6(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6(2) and (3) GDPR require that Union or Member State

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

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

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

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

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

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)

pursuant to Article 83(5)(e) GDPR. Second, the DPA considered the non-compliance with the summons to breach breach of Article 58(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The delay

further details see Article 14(1)(d) GDPR. Similar to the ex-ante information in Article 13(1)(e) and 14(1)(e) GDPR, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR requires the controller

with 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

are dealt with in Article 12(6) GDPR. It is unclear why Article 12(2) GDPR refers to Articles 15 to 22 GDPR, while Article 11(2) GDPR only refers to Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to in Article 42(5) and approved by the supervisory authority which is competent pursuant to Article 55 or 56 or by the Board pursuant to Article 63; (c)

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

See e.g. Articles 64(5), 65(5), 64(7) and 64(8) GDPR. Docksey, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 74 GDPR, p. 1099

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

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

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

to in point (d) of Article 46(2) and in Article 28(8); (e) aims to authorise contractual clauses referred to in point (a) of Article 46(3); or (f) aims

legitimate purpose(s) (Article 5(1)(b)); lawfulness of processing (Article 6); adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary data (Article 5(1)(c)); limited

month to a request for mutual assistance (Article 61(8) GDPR) or to a request of joint operations (Article 62(7) GDPR). On 12 July 2021, the EDPB adopted an

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary, Article 38 GDPR, p. 707 (Oxford University Press 2020). Bergt, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 38 GDPR, margin number 20 (C.H. Beck

protection law as enshrined in Article 5 GDPR must be complied with, and that the rights of the data subjects as found in the GDPR must also be available under

which would be competent under Article 55(1) GDPR, as provided in Article 56 GDPR in connection with Article 60 GDPR. For more information see commentary

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

limited to, security of processing (Article 32(1) GDPR) and the general principles of processing set out in Article 5 GDPR. In confirming the above interpretation

excluded, as Article 54(1)(e) GDPR addresses the question of reappointment. Therefore, the GDPR assumes a limited term for the position. Article 54(1)(e) GDPR

requirements. Although Article 40(5) GDPR mentions that the competent DPA will be determined through the application of Article 55 GDPR, the GDPR does not provide

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

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)’

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

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

from the fact that, according to Article 68(3) GDPR, the Commission is not a member of the EDPB. Secondly, Article 68(5) GDPR explicitly states that the Commission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

necessary. 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

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

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 be. The Board

violates Article 32 GDPR. Retaining personal data of an applicant for a lease after another applicant has been selected also violates Article 5(1)(e) GDPR

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%

According to Article 83.5 c of the data protection regulation, in the event of a violation of, among other things, article 44 in accordance with 83.2 administrative

art. 83, par. 5, letter. e), of the Regulation; CONSIDERING, on the basis of the foregoing, that the prerequisites for the application of art. 5, paragraph

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

criteria provided for by Article 83(2) GDPR and ensuring it is effective, proportionate and dissuasive in line with Article 83(1) GDPR. Adopted 117 10 BINDING

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

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

relation to Article 5(1)(a) and (f), Article 5(2), Article 6(1), Article 7(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1)(b), (c), (d), (d), (e) and (f)

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

presenting the principles of data processing of Article 5(1) GDPR, underlined that, based on Article 5(2) GDPR, it is the data processor's responsibility to

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

already has the information. Art. 83 para. 5 lit. a GDPR: Article 83: General conditions for the imposition of fines [...] 5. Fines of up to EUR 20 000 000

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

manager who received all of A's e-mails picked out company-related e-mails and forwarded private e-mails to A's private e-mail address. In the relevant period

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

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SEVENTH: Notification of the aforementioned

LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 and 13 of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: The database of this organization

According to Article 83.5 c of the data protection regulation, in the event of a violation of, among other things, article 44 in accordance with 83.2 administrative

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

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

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

therefore violated Articles 9(1) GDPR out of negligence. The DPA fined the controller €1,600,000 pursuant of Article 83(5)(a) GDPR and considered this a high

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

with NIF ***NIF.1, for the alleged violation of Article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SECOND: APPOINT R.R.R. as instructor. and, as

in particular of children was in breach of Article 5, Article 6, Article 8, Article 9, and Article 25 GDPR. Consequently, the DPA urgently imposed upon

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

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

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

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

provisions of the article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, so they involve the commission of an infraction classified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, which provides the

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

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

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

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

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

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

infringements of Article 5.1.c) and Article 6.1 AVG. In particular, the Disputes Chamber found that relevant that: - the infringed Article 5.1.c) AVG contains

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

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

determining the amount of the fine, the criteria specified in the same article 83.'' 79. L’article 83 du RGPD prévoit : ''1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure

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

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

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

infringement 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

2023-06-30 According to article 83.5 c of the data protection regulation, in the event of a violation of among article 44 in accordance with 83.2 administrative

violation of Article 6 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, and classified as very serious for the purposes of prescription in article 72.1.b)

the GDPR. In light of this, the Court agreed with the DPA that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 12 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, Article

by article 32.1 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…) V Without prejudice to the provisions of article 83.5 of the RGPD, the aforementioned article provides

conjunction with Article 56(5), read in conjunction with Article 56(6), read in conjunction with Article 56(7), read in conjunction with Article 56(8). in conjunction

relevance. According to article 83.5 c of the data protection regulation, in the event of a violation of among article 44 in accordance with 83.2 administrative

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR SAW The violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD implies the commission of the violations typified in article 83.5 of 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:

shall take into account the criteria set out in Article 83 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/679. Article 83 of the RGPD provides for : 1. Each enforcement authority

entitled to erasure under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, as the data processing was not lawful. In any case, the requirements of Article 6 GDPR were no longer met 6

pursuant to Article 82 GDPR. According to the Advocate General’s opinion, even if the notion of damages should be interpreted broadly, Article 82 GDPR implies

fail to adhere to the data transparency (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR) and the data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) principles? Was the defendant required to

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

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

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

violating Article 15(1) and (4) GDPR as well as the principle of accountability pursuant to Article 5(2) GDPR. The complainant requested twice via e-mail all

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

against the respondent, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.d) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. SIXTH: On October 28, 19, written allegations

to as ‘GDPR’), which replaced Directive 95/56, has been applicable since 25 May 2018. In accordance with the provisions of Article 15 (1) GDPR, the data

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

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

under Article 5 (1)(e)GDPR, the duty to provide information under Article 13 GDPR, and the obligation to carry out a DPIA under Article 35(3)(b) GDPR. The

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

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

the obligations set out in Article 24 (1), Article 25 (1), Article 32 (1 ) (b ) and (d) and Article 32 (2), both Article 83 sec. 4 lit. a regulation 2016/679

i) and 83 of the RGPD and Article 166 of the Code, has the corrective power to "impose a pecuniary administrative sanction pursuant to Article 83, in addition

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

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

is whether, according to the Personal Protection Ordinance, Article 83 No. 5, cf. Article 83 No. 2, an infringement fee must be imposed for a breach of

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

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

company for faulty website security (article 32 GDPR) and violation of the storage limitation principle (article 5(1)(e) GDPR). After a complaint in 2018, the

Under Article 83 (2), (5) and (7) of the General Data Protection Regulation: '... 2. Administrative fines shall be imposed in accordance with Article 58 (2)

c of the GDPR} d) Any violation committed by the controller or processor (article 83.2.e of the GDPR} e) The degree of cooperation established with the

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 of

with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD SECOND:

stakeholders did not follow the security principles as per Article 5(1)(f) GDPR (ed.: the decision actually reads 5(2)(f)), highlighting ‘the absence of an assessment

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

with a reprimand under Article 83(5) and required them to bring their processing in line with the requirements in Article 5(1)(f) GDPR in order to prevent

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 58. 1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. 2/5 SIXTH: The aforementioned agreement to commence

months to two years; in any case, the sanction set forth in article 83, paragraph 5, letter e) of the Regulation may be applied at administrative level.

for in Article 83, paragraph 5, of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation itself and Article 166, paragraph

therefore held that the controller violated Article 5(f) (principles of integrity and confidentiality) and Article 9 by communicating personal data, including

connection 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

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

confidentiality of personal data (Article 5 (1) (f) of Regulation 2016/679) or rules for limiting data storage (Article 5 (1) (e) of Regulation 2016/679), resulting

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

respondent: a) for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1.a) of the GDPR, sanctioned in accordance with the Article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD and, b)

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On June 30, 2022, the claimed party presented

(Datenschutzbehörde - DSB) held that the doctor had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 9(1) and (2) GDPR as the patients had not given their ecplicit consent

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

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

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

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

A.U., with NIF A80907397, for the alleged violation of article 6.1. GDPR typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. 1. APPOINT D. B.B.B. as

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: After the period granted for the formulation

for in art. 83, par. 5, letter e) of the Regulation. Pursuant to Article 78 of the Regulation, as well as Article 152 of the Code and Article 10 of Legislative

infraction of Article 6.1.a) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a penalty of APPRECIATION, in accordance with the provisions of Article 58.2 RGPD

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

fine of € 5 000 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

by Wind Tre a breach of Articles 5, 6 and 24 GDPR? Was the processing by Wind Tre in violation of Articles 5 and 6 GDPR? Was the information provided by

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

for the alleged infractions of the article 5.1 d) and 17 of the RGPD, infractions typified in article 83.5 a) and 83.5 b) of the RGPD and classified as very

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 as secretary to Mrs. E.E.E., indicated

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

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On October 13, 2022, DIGI requests the

criteria stated in Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. In imposing the fine, the AEPD factored in accordance with Article 83(2) GDPR and Article 76 LOPDGDD the following

with NIF A85850394, for the presumed infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD typified in Article 83.5 a) of the aforementioned RGPD". opting for a penalty

c) and e) GDPR. Lastly, they carried out a dissemination of sensitive data - i.e. disabilities of the students - of vulnerable subjects (i.e. minors)

particular case; SAW Both the infringement of article 9 and article 6 of the RGPD, are found provided for in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD where it is established

procedure to the claimed, by the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD. SEVENTH: Once the aforementioned commencement

processing special 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

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 LPACAP, for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SIXTH: On January 23, 2023, DIGI requests a

claimed party, for the alleged infraction of the Article 58.2 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 e) of the RGPD. Said agreement was notified through

images, in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) found that the defendant's conduct violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, as a broader principle

Page 4 4/5IIIThis infraction is typified in article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, which considers as such: “ nofacilitate access in breach of article 58, paragraph

suspension. " 5 Pursuant to Article 83 (2), (5) and (7) of the General Data Protection Regulation: “[...] administrative fines in accordance with Article 58 (2)

GPRD), an offense under Article 83(5)(a) of the GPRD and described as very serious in article 72.1. a) of Organic Law 3/2018 of 5 December, on Protection

alleged infringement of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, and Article 32 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4 of the RGPD Once

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

Articles 5, paragraph 1, letter a), c) and e), 12, 13, 15 of the Regulation, the outcome of the proceedings referred to in Article 166, paragraph 5 conducted

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

each; ii. 0a misdemeanour, p. e p. by Article 5(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 5(1)(e) a) Article 83.0.5, both of the GDPR, will be sanctioned with a fine

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

to the present case for infringement of Article 24 and/or Article 32 of the GDPR (Article 83(2)(e) of the GDPR). The company cooperated with the SDPI during

cannot be squared with the evidence.e" 5.5.5 Further: 5.5.5.1 At §§18-23, Ticketmaster submitted that it had met its GDPR obligations by establishing "adequate

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

of Article 12(1) GDPR. The AP outlined that, in the event of an infringement of Article 12(1) of the GDPR, pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83(5)

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

the offence referred to in Article 83 (5) (e) of the GDPR, which will be sanctioned in accordance with Article 58 (2) GDPR. oepd LEGAL BASIS I By virtue

accordance with Article 32 paragraph 1 letter a DSGVO. The unsecured passwords are personal data, since these passwords, the associated user names and e-mail addresses

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1(f) of the GDPR, as defined in Article 83.5(a) of the GDPR. FOURTH: Having been notified of the above-mentioned

sanctioning procedure, under Article 83(5)(a) of the GDPR, against AAA on 21 December 2022, due to a infringement of Article 6. AAA was the father of the

subsequent violations of Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(1)(d) GDPR and of the principle of accountability as foreseen in Article 5(2) GDPR read in conjunction

been taken up in Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR under the Principles relating to the processing of personal data (Chapter II). Article 5(1)(b) of the RGPD

i) and 83 of the RGPD and Article 166 of the Code, has the corrective power to "impose a pecuniary administrative sanction pursuant to Article 83, in addition

of €10,000.00. claimed, for the violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, an action that can be subsumed under the sanctioning type of article 83.5 of the RGPD. IV Article 58 of the RGPD

the Council in the context of Article 31, Article 58(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 83(1) to (3) and Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679 of the

above-mentioned art. 83 sec. 4 lit. a) of Regulation 2016/679, while for violation of Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. a) Regulation 2016/679 - pursuant to art. 83 sec. 5 lit. (a)

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

show that the basics the principles of Article 5 of the Data Protection Regulation are complied with (Article 5 (2)). The person responsible for personal

same Article 83. 181. Article 83 of the RGPD provides : 1. Each control authority shall ensure that administrative fines imposed under this Article for

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

with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 14 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD. In that

administrative sanction provided for in Article 83, paragraph 5, of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Article 58, paragraph 2, letter i), of the Regulation

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

the number of data subjects (Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the As for the number of data subjects (Article 83.2.a) of the GDPR), the Panel notes that these

information obligation provided for a / 'article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR. (...) Pursuant to article 14, §5, (c) of the GDPR, the responsibility for processing

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

disproportionate pursuant to Art. 14 par. 5 lit. b GDPR? The President of UODO found that: 1) The applicable provision is the Art. 14 GDPR since the data controller collects

controller) about €352,555 (NOK 4,000,000) for violating Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR after a serious ransomware attack led to highly

with NIF A80907397, for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.d) of the RGPD as defined in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD. To appoint Mr. B.B

pursuant to Article 83(5), the AEPD stated that Articles 83(2)(b) (the "unintentional but signficant negligent" character of the infringement) and 83(2)(g) (the

Entrepreneur - based on Article 83(5)(e) of Regulation 2016/679, in connection with the Entrepreneur's violation of Article 31 and Article 58(1)(e) of Regulation

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

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), it is that with respect

identity "(Article 4, par. 1, 1, of the GDPR). The processing of personal data must also take place in compliance with the principles indicated in art. 5 of the

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. FOURTH: Once the aforementioned commencement

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 the European Parliament and

violation committed by the Center of Registers listed in Article 83(2) (b), (c), (e), (f) and (h) GDPR, i. e. the absence of intent, the efforts made to restore

for the alleged violation of article 5.1f) of the RGPD in relation to the Article 5 of the LOPDGDD, typified in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. C / Jorge Juan

controller had 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

party was charged with claimed a violation of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR; considering that capturing images of shared

question. THIRD:By letter dated 18/01/19, in the context of Cases E/08257/2018, E/0482/2019 and E/2463/2019, the entity complained against provided the Agency

i), and 83, para. 4 and 5, of the same Regulation, as also referred to by art. 166, paragraph 2, of the Code. 5. Corrective measures (Article 58, par.

transmission by e-mail to at least one employee of the entity - infringes Article 32. 2 and 32.4 of the RGPD, an infringement punishable under Article 83.4.a of

show that the basics the principles of Article 5 of the Data Protection Regulation are complied with (Article 5 (2) of the Regulation). The person responsible

claimed by violation of article 83.5.a) of the RGPD, it is essential to examine and assess whether The circumstances described in article 83.2 of the RGPD concur

out in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD: -The claimed entity does not have previous infringements (83.2 e) RGPD). -It has not obtained direct benefits (83.2 k)

fundamental principles of the GDPR, notably Article 5(1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The DPA found violations of various provisions of the GDPR. It held that the controller

statement of the Debtor [Article 83 (2) (k) GDPR]; - the processing did not affect specific categories of personal data [Article 83 (2) GDPR paragraph (g)]; -

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

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

Art. 5 sec. 1 lit. f), art. 24 sec. 1, art. 25 sec. 1, art. 28 sec. 1 and 3 and article. 32 sec. 1 and 2, as well as art. 83 sec. 1 - 3, art. 83 sec. 4

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

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FIFTH: Once the aforementioned start-up

>>) " The violation of article 5.1.d) of the RGPD is typified in article 83.5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 in the following terms: "5. Violations of the following

typified in article 83.5.e) of the RGPD, in an initial assessment,the following factors are considered concurrent:- Has not obtained direct benefits (83.2 k)

and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 24(1) GDPR and Article 28(1) GDPR. Second, the DPA found that, since the data processing

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

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

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

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

employees' surveillance was against the principle of purpose limitation, Article 5(1)(b) GDPR. Indeed, the controller carried out a disciplinary control though

dissuasive" as per Article 83(1). In addition to a breach of Article 6(1)(f), the lack of organisational measures pursuant to Article 5(2) was weighted when

company was not compliant with Article 13 GDPR. The CNPD held that the controller infringed Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and decided to: - impose

criteria described in Article 83 GDPR for determining the fine and had not consulted the EDPB Guidelines regarding Article 83 GDPR (Guidelines 04/2022)

provided for in Article 83.5.a) in relation to Articles 5.1.a) and 9; another infraction provided for in Article 83.5.b) in relation to Article 13; and a third

consent tion under articles 5, 6, 7 and 9;” The LOPDGDD indicates in its article 72: "1. Based on the provisions of article 83.5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679

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

with the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD SECOND:

Authority. II.5.2. Established infringement of Article 5(1)(a) j° Article 6(1)(f) and Article 12(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 17 (1) GDPR. II.5.2.1. Administrative

for which you are responsible, typified in article 83.5.b) RGPD, the provisions of articles 83.1 and 83.2 of the RGPD must be observed, precepts that state:

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

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1.b) of the RGPD, typified in the Article 83.5 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Once the aforementioned initiation

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

accuracy of the data processed (Article 5, paragraph 1, letter d) of the Regulation), nor in terms of safety and integrity (Article 5, paragraph 1, letter f) of

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

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

for the allegedviolation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of theArticle 83.5.a) of the aforementioned RGPD

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

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

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

to keep a register of processing activities of Article 30 GDPR and storage limitation Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. 6) Digital meters The data subject complains

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

reasons the Italian DPA, with the power conferred by Article 58(2)(d) and (f) and Article 83(3) and (5) GDPR, imposed to Fastweb multiple corrective measures

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)

accordance with provided for in article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction

for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.b) of the RGPD, a warning sanction in accordance with article 77.2 of the LOPDGDD

been deleted by the employer upon request pursuant to Article 16, Article 17 and Article 5(1)(d) GDPR (inaccuracy of personal data). Therefore, the employer

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

the DPA held that the controller had violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Section 3 of the Finnish Act on the Protection

(articles 58, paragraph 2, letter i and 83 of the Regulations; article 166, paragraph 7, of the Code). Pursuant to art. 83, par. 3 of the Regulation, if in relation

montant de 10.000 € (article 83, paragraphe 2, de l'AVG ; article 100, §1, 13° WOG et article 101 WOG). 129. Compte tenu de l'article 83 AVG et de la jurisprudence17

regard to Article 83(2)(k) of the RGPD, the LOPDGDD, in its Article 76, 'Sanctions and corrective measures', states that "In accordance with Article 83(2)(k)

connection with Article 5 paragraph 1 point a, Article 5 paragraph 2, Article 6 paragraph 1, Article 7 paragraph 3, Article 12 paragraph 2, Article 17 paragraph

claimed party, for the alleged infringement of Article 6 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notification of the aforementioned start-up

Administration (LPACAP), by alleged violation of Article 5.1(b) of the GPMR, as set forth in Article 83.5 of the GPMR FOURTH: Upon notification of the above-mentioned

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.aepd

violation of article 17 in combination with article 21 par. 3 and article 12 paragraph 3 of the GDPR and article 25 paragraph 1 of the GDPR. For its judgment

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

Applicant's e-mail address to the Applicant's e-mail address. Based on the above, the Authority concluded that the Applicant's address details and e-mail address

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

violation of the article6.1. of the RGPD, in relation to article 20 e) of the LOPDGDD, typifiedin article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned GDPR.2. TO appoint

opening, in this Agency, of two investigation files: E/0065/2019 and E/3498/2019. A) With regard to Procedure E/0065/2019: C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

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

agreements Article 12 (1) of the GDPR 17 IV.5. Legal consequences (72) The Authority finds that the Client has infringed Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR, Article 6 Article

2016/679 and article 11toun.3471 / 2006, according to article 58par.2 of the GCP in in combination with article 83 par. 5 of the GCC, and with article 21 par

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

or of the Member States ”. The violation of article 32 is classified in article 83.4.a) of the cited GDPR in the following terms: "4. Violations of the

perpetrator (Article 83(2) GDPR). Lastly, the amount of the fine shall not exceed the maximum amounts provided for in Articles 83(4) (5) and (6) GDPR. The quantification

www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/14 particular (…) ” III The RGPD deals in its article 5 with the principles that must govern the treatment

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

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

the administrative sanctions referred to in art. 83, para. 4 and 5, of the GDPR. In this regard, art. 83, par. 3, of the RGPD, provides that «If, in relation

A., with NIF *** NIF.1,  For an infringement of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the mentioned rule, a fine of TWO THOUSAND EUROS

violating the provisions of article 6 of the GDPR, which supposes the commission of an infraction typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, which provides the following:

against the respondent, by the alleged violation of Article 5.1(c) of the GPRS, as defined in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. In view of all that has been done,

with NIF A85850394, for the presumed infringement of Article 6.1 of the RGPD typified in Article 83.5 a) of the aforementioned RGPD". opting for a penalty

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

***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 10 000 (TEN

very serious ”provides: "1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation (E.U.) 2016/679 are considered very serious and will prescribe

municipality had violated Articles 5 and 6 GDPR by publishing personal data on their webpage without a legal basis, and Articles 5 and 32(1)(b) by failing to implement

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

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

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

serious breach and could be fined with the amounts established in Article 83(5) GDPR, in this case, the AEPD considered that the defendant had already

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

the provisions of article 58.2.b) of the RGPD, for the alleged infringement of article 5.1 d) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the RGPD and

claimed byviolation of article 83.5.a) of the RGPD, it is essential to examine and assess whetherThe circumstances described in article 83.2 of the RGPD concur

***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

fairness principle, violating Article 5(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, and Article 6 in conjunction with Article 8 Personal Data Protection

administrative fines set out in Article 83.5 of the AVG. 51. Taking into account the criteria contained in article 83.2 of the AVG as well as the case

gob.es Page 26 26/30In article 83.5.a) of the RGPD, it seems appropriate to make two clarifications:The first, that article 83.2 RGPD requires that the

Articles 5(1)(a) GDPR and 13 GDPR. On the other hand, they disagreed with the infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR in relation to Article 9(1) GDPR with regard

amount of the fine, the criteria specified in the same article 83. " According to Article 83 of the GDPR: "1. Each supervisory authority shall ensure that administrative

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

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

of violating Article 13(1) of the PGI, in relation to Articles 6(1)(a) and 8 of Regulation 2016/679. Infringement typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD and

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

21(2) and 21(4) GDPR. Moreover, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c), 5(2), 6(1), 12(2), 21(2) and 21(4) GDPR. The controller

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

Digital Rights (LOPDGDD), 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

alleged infringement of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD and article 13 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 a) and b) of the GDPR. FIFTH: On 12/17/2021 the

violation of Article 5(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) GDPR. Furthermore, there was no legal basis for these processing operations under Article 6(1) GDPR. The DPA

sedeagpd.gob.es 6/13 "1. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.5 of the Regulation (E.U.) 2016/679 are considered very serious and will prescribe

amended; Article 82 para 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (Basic Data Protection Regulation - DSGVO), OJ L 207, 30.12.2009, p. 1. No. L 119 of 4.5.2016, p

procedure to the claimed, by the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001

administrative sanction provided for in Article 83(4) and (5) of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83(5) of the Regulation itself as also

with Article 5 (1) (a) and Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR. Thus, the controller failed to comply with the accountability principle under Article 5 (2) GDPR. Second

analyzes the criteria set by article 83.2 of the GDPR: - As for the nature and seriousness of the violation (article 83.2 a) of the GDPR), it recalls in with regard

infringement of article 32.1 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.4.a) of the RGPD, a fine of € 3,000 (three thousand euros), in accordance with article 73.g) of

set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation

issued under this article. " III Article 73 of the LOPDDG indicates: Violations considered serious "Based on what is established in article 83.4 of Regulation

for violation of article 83.5.a) of the RGPD, it is essential to examine and assess whether the circumstances described in article 83.2 of the RGPD exist

internal compliance and accountability according to Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 5(2) GDPR and Article 6(1) GDPR. Since the company had totally ignored the its

highly sensitive personal data exposed, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) GDPR and Article 32(2), cf. Article 24. An employee in a municipal health care center

aggravating circumstance according to Article 83(2)(i) or as a separate violation according to Article 83(5)(e) or Article 83(6). Since the situation at hand

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

is typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, which considers as such:C / Jorge Juan, 6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 5 5/11"5 . Violations of

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

municipality €409,768 (NOK 4,000,000) for breaches of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 24 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR after a serious ransomware attack led to highly

obligor.[Article 83(2)(b) GDPR] - The obligor has not yet been convicted for violating the General Data Protection Regulation.[Article 83(2)(e) GDPR] - The

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

the lack of security routines, thus breaching Article 32(1)(b) cf. Article 5 GDPR, Article 35 and Article 24(1), respectively. Teachers at two junior high

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

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

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

this processing, in violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR; It violated Article 13(1) and (1) GDPR, and Article 5(1) GDPR by failing to adequately inform data

to the criteria laid down by Article 83 paragraph 2 of the GDPR. With regard to the breach of Article L. 34-5 of the GDPR, the restricted committee considers

DPA held that 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

accountability (Article 5 (2) and 24 (1), (2) GDPR), privacy by design (Article 25 (1) GDPR) and as controller towards its data processors (Article 28 GDPR). Consequently

tribunal is whether according to the Privacy Ordinance Article 83 No. 5 and Article 83 No. 4, cf. Article 83. No. 2, an infringement fee shall be imposed for

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

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR (LCEur 2016, 605) , typified in article 83.5.a) of the GDPR, a penalty of warning, of in accordance with article 77 of

for an infringement of article 14 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, a warning sanction, in in relation to article 74.a) of the LOPDGDD.

scalethe by the number of clients it has (article 83.2 a)Basic personal identifiers are affected (article 83.2 g)Therefore, in accordance with the applicable

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 Regulation

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

information pursuant to Article 13 (1) of the GDPR of what is written in paragraph Recital (39) of the GDPR and Article 5 (1) point a) of the GDPR stipulate that

for profiles similar to those reported in this complaint (Article 83, paragraph 2, letter e) of the Regulations: provision. n. 364 of 10 July 2014 [Doc

particular case; " The offense is classified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, which considers as such: "5. Violations of the following provisions will be sanctioned

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid

provisions of article 9 of the GDPR, which implies the commission of an infringement classified in section 5.a) of the Article 83 of the GDPR. Article 83.5.a) of

for violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5.a) of said Regulation and sanctioned in accordance with Article 77.2 of the LOPDGDD

prescription, Article 72(1)(b) of the LOPDGDD states "Infringements considered very serious": 1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 83(5) of 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

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned start-up

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

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

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

B02547164, for an infringement of article 13 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 GDPR, a fine of FIVE THOUSAND EUROS (€ 5,000.00). SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution

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

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

following way: € 2.400 under Article 6(1)(f) and 83(5)(a) GDPR (illegal surveillance) € 800 under §§ 52(2)(6), 62(1)(4) and 69(5) DSG 2000 (missing protocol)

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

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

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

patient data cf. Article 32 GDPR and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and inadequate internal controls cf. Article 24 GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR. Østfold Hospital

intervention Article 58 (2) (i) and Article 83 (2) state that the IMY has the power to impose administrative penalty fees in accordance with Article 83. the circumstances

personal protection regulation article 83 no. 5 that violation of articles 5, 6, 7 and 9 of accordance with article 83 no. 2 shall be imposed an infringement

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, in relation to article 5 of the LOPDGDD, as indicated in article 83.5 a) of the RGPD. The telematic

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

of Articles 5-1-e) and 13 of the GDPR constitute breaches of key principles of the GDPR likely to be subject, under Article 83 of the GDPR, to an administrative

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

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

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

information provided was in breach of Article 13 GDPR. Therefore, the authority warned the controller (Article 83(5) GDPR) and requested to complete the notice

this respect, both Article 6 and Articles 12 and 13 are among the provisions whose disregard is most severely sanctioned in Article 83(5) of the GDMP. The

intervention Article 58 (2) (i) and Article 83 (2) state that the IMY has the power to impose administrative penalty fees in accordance with Article 83. the circumstances

thereby violating Article 12 (1) and Article 14 (1) points a) and c), as well as Article 14 (2) b), c) and e) of the GDPR points. 3.5. Customer 1's data

of 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

natureinfringement.5. ΚυπWσεις5.1.1. As defined in the provisions of Rule 83 (5) of the Rules of Procedure. violation of the provisions ofArticles 5 and 15, draws

breach of the General Data Protection Regulation5. Article 5 (1) (a), Article 5 (2) and Article 13 Article 1 (1) to (2). III.3. JogkövetkezményekIII.3.1

Q4500146H, for 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

required by article 6 of the RGPD. The data processing carried out violates article 6 of the RGPD conduct that is subsumed in article 83.5 of the RGPD

typified in article 83.5.e) of the GDPR, which considers as such: "no facilitate access in breach of article 58, section 1.” The same article establishes

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

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned start-up

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. The

applicable to the controller, including Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR. As a matter of fact, Articles 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR set general principles and conditions of

paragraph 5, of the Regulation applicable, pursuant to Articles 58, paragraph 2, letter i), and 83, paragraph 5, of the Regulation. 5. Adoption of the injunction

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

purposes in Article 73, sections j), k) and p) of the LOPDGDD, for violation of article 44 of the RGPD typified in accordance with article 83.5.c) of the

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

infraction of art. 5.1.d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016, typified in art. 83.5 of the aforementioned

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

processing carried out is in violation of Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, Article 25(1) GDPR, Article 32 GDPR and Article 35 GDPR. Especially, the controller cannot exclude

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

applied Article 83 (1) GDPR: the described conduct of the Bank resulted in a serious violation of the data subjects' rights - regulated by art. 83 (5) (b)

hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned start-up

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Once the aforementioned commencement

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

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

claimed byviolation of article 83.5.a) of the RGPD, it is essential to examine and assess whetherThe circumstances described in article 83.2 of the RGPD concur

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

issued under this article. " III Article 73 of the LOPDDG indicates: "Violations considered serious "Based on what is established in article 83.4 of Regulation

of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the RGPD, a fine of FIVE THOUSAND EUROS (€ 5,000). That, under the provisions of article 58

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

required by Article 13 of the GDPR GDPR. The form used violated Article 13 of the GDPR conduct that is subsumi- ble under Article 83(5) of the GDPR, which provides:

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

(hereinafter, LPA- CAP), for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. SEVENTH: Once the aforementioned commencement

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

(hereinafter, LPACAP), for the alleged violation of article 15 of the RGPD, in accordance with article 83.5 b) of the RGPD. Against the initial agreement, no

violations of Article 6 of the Privacy Ordinance can lead to sanctions in the form of infringement fines of up to EUR 20 million, see Article 83 (5) of the Privacy

suspension. " Under Article 83 (2), (5) and (7) of the General Data Protection Regulation: administrative fines in accordance with Article 58 (2) (a) to (b)

with NIF A95758389, for the alleged violation of article 5.1 f) of the RGPD,typified in article 83.5 a) of the RGPDSECOND: ORDER IBERDROLA CLIENTES, SAU

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

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

Liability Law, 9 Article 156, the second and third paragraphs of Article 157, the first paragraph of Article 166, Article 168, Article 262, Article 269, 1. to

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

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

violation of article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in accordance with article 58 par. 2 i' of the GDPR in combination with article 83 par. 5 of the GDPR. The

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

violation of article 5.1.c), typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned rule, a sanction of APPEARANCE. SECOND: ORDER, under the provisions of article 58.2

subjects infringes Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. The AEPD fined the data processor in an amount of 4,000 Euro for the violation of Article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. Since the

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

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

5(1)( c) or article 34(1) of the GDPR. Legal framework 8.1. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR “Personal Data shall be: … (c) adequate, relevant and

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 October

principles of minimization and purpose limitation (Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(1)(b) of the GDPR): The Belgian DPA considers that the indication of the

violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5 of the GDPR, a warning sanction and for a violation of article 32 of the GDPR, typified

the fee. 5.5. The amount of the infringement fee In determining the fee, the points in section 5.4 above shall be given weight, cf. Article 83 (2). The

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

handed down under this article." III Article 73 of the LOPDDG states Infringements considered serious: "In accordance with Article 83(4) of Regulation (EU)

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

infringement of Article 32 GDPR in conjunction with Article 5(1)(f) GDPR? The Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) found that the controller violated Article 32 GDPR as they

with the provisions of the article 6.1. of the RGPD, which could lead to the commission of an infringement typified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, which provides

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

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

typified in article 83.4 of the RGPD and is qualified as serious in article 73.1 g) of the LOPDPGDD for prescription purposes.III Article 58.Article 58.2 of

administrative fine Under Article 58, second paragraph, preamble below i, the AP is read in conjunction with Article 83 of the GDPR, authorized to impose an

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

constitute a breach of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR? The AEPD held, that the actions of the defendant constitute an infringement of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR " Data Minimisation

volition investigation into CP&A's compliance with Article 9, as well as Article 32 GDPR. Since Article 9 GDPR prohibits the processing of special categories