Search results

monitoring purposes need to be specified for every surveillance camera in use and "[v]ideo surveillance based on the mere purpose of 'safety' or 'for your safety'

respects the GDPR as well as the specific conditions laid down in Chapter V. The same conditions must also be met for onward transfers to further third

Commisson v Germany; Case C-614/10, Commission v Austria; and Case C-288/12, Commission v Hungary. See CJEU, case C-518/07 - Commission v Germany, paragraph

this Regulation and of measures taken in accordance with Article 58(2); and (v) fulfil any other tasks related to the protection of personal data. 2. Each

matter is largely clarified by the CJEU now. Case Law: In C-487/21 - F.F. v DSB, the CJEU clarified that the right to a copy under Article 15(3) GDPR entails

14 TPG (German Organ Transplant Law). § 284 and § 285 SGB V (German Social Insurance Code V)

(rights of the data subject), CHAPTER IV (controller and processor), CHAPTER V (transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations)

3rd Edition). CJEU in case C-288/2012 - Commission v Hungary, paragraphs 53 to 59. Case C‑424/15, Garai v Administración del Estado, paragraph 52. Polenz

carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household

“European Court of  Human Rights, 14  September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. The Netherlands, EC:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, margin number 83: “Further

available'. This provision, together with the others contained in Chapter V, thus contributes to the transfer of personal data in a globalised economy

protection that should be achieved is promoted and delimited in Chapter V of the GDPR. Chapter V of the GDPR creates a three-tiered structure for legal bases for

shall examine, in particular, the application and functioning of: (a) Chapter V on the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organisations

Furthermore, this choice must be seen in light of Case C-614/10, Commission v Austria. Here, the ECJ established that a supervisory authority's staff could

Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, 2009, §§ 114-115; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], 2011, §§ 301-304 and 319; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], 2012

University Press 2020). CJEU, Commission v Germany, C-518/07, margin number 23 (available here); CJEU, Commission v. Austria, C-614/10, margin number 37 (available

is particularly sensitive, privacy should trump transparency. In C-439/19 B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima the CJEU held that ‘in light [of]… the sensitivity

Articles 6 to 9 GDPR, or the lack of a valid transfer mechanism under Chapter V GDPR. It further includes violations of delegated acts and implementing acts

ensure democratic control and transparency. Case law: The CJEU in Commission v Germany, considered tha the obligation of independent SAs to regularly submit

other mechanism of Chapter V can be applied. As explained by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), the mechanism in Chapter V acts as a layer structure

CJEU - C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law:

of Article 3 and the provisions on international transfers as per Chapter V of the GDPR The GDPR does not provide a definition of 'establishment' for the

exercise of their powers. The CJEU clarified, in Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission, that information will be considered confidential if it fulfils

processors (Article 28); safeguards surrounding international transfer(s) (Chapter V); prior consultation (Article 36). risks to the rights and freedoms of data

Passenger Name Records. The transfers based on other provisions of Chapter V, such as adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses and binding corporate

of dispute resolution. This reading is supported by the Court in Commission v Germany, which interpreted the phrase “complete independence” in the context

number 2 (C. H. Beck 2020, 3rd edition) citing CJEU, C-193/18, Google LLC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 13 June 2019 (available here), and CJEU, C-142/18

first take place before the Small Claims Court. The EWCA in Open Rights Group v Secretary of State for the Home Department helpfully summarised the approach

transfers to third countries or international organisations under Chapter V of the GDPR (Article 44 et seq. GDPR). The GDPR only requires that a SA is

exchange of information and best practices between the supervisory authorities; (v) promote common training programmes and facilitate personnel exchanges between

Article 30, margin number 19 (C.H.Beck 2020, 3rd Edition). CJEU, C-154/21, RW v Österreichische Post, 12 January 2023, among the others, margin number 24 (available

ensuring compliance with data transfer requirements for third countries (Chapter V), and organizing communication with data subjects and supervisory authorities

transfers to non-EU/EEA countries ('third countries') can be found in Chapter V of the GDPR. Example: When a Czech controller is storing personal data with

identified; (iv) how serious the consequences of the breach are to individuals; (v) whether individuals affected are particularly vulnerable; (vi) whether the

The CJEU issued its first judgment on non-material damages under Article 82 GDPR. It was ruled that there is no threshold for non-material damages for

international organisations, taking into account the provisions of Chapter V of the GDPR. If the instructions by the controller "do not allow for transfers

CJEU - C-487/21 F.F. v DSB Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 15(3) GDPR Decided: 04.05.2023 Parties: DSB (Austria) Case Number/Name:

CJEU - C-154/21 RW v Österreichische Post Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 12(5)(b) GDPR Article 15(1)(c)

application of Chapter V of the GDPR First, it must be verified whether the first respondent is subject to the obligations standardized in Chapter V of the Regulation

Cases C‑92/09 and C‑93/09, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, paragraph 86, 9. November 2010 (available here). EDPB, ‘Guidelines

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. Planet49 GmbH Case Number/Name: C-673/17 Planet49 European Case Law Identifier:

CJEU - C-251/21 Meta Platforms and Others v Bundeskartellamt Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 6 GDPR Article 9 GDPR Article

20 June 2007, p. 4 (available here). European Court of Human Rights. Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95. For example as a consumer, patient, employee

used to achieve this are identified and summarised in R (Open Rights Group) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 800, [2021] 1 WLR

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

was first outlined in Thorburn v Sunderland City Council in 2002 and reiterated in HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, R (ex parte) v The Secretary of State for Transport

to ensure that additional measures were put in place to comply with Chapter V of the GDPR, such as encryption of the personal data. The Municipality claimed

Austrian DPA alleging that the controller breached the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

use of Google Analytics tool was in violation of the provisions of Chapter V GDPR. The complaint was transferred to the Swedish DPA in its quality of lead

Directive committed up to the date when that Directive was repealed (§104). V. In the fifth place, the Court recognized the direct effect of the provision

provisions of the GDPR shall not be interpreted in broader terms the Titles V and VI of the EU Treaty/Treaty of Lisbon and, in any case, border than the

Irving v Post Office [1987] IRLR 289, Weddall v Barchester Healthcare [2012] EWCA Civ 25, Bernard v Attorney General of Jamaica [2004] UKPC 47, Brown v Robinson

The CJEU ruled that consent is not valid if a contract contains a clause stating that the data subject has been informed of, and has consented to, the

CJEU - C-667/21 ZQ v Medical Service of Health Insurance North Rhine Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(f) GDPR Article

Chamber),composed of D. Spielmann, President, V. Valančius (Rapporteur) and R. Mastroianni, Judges,Registrar: V. Di Bucci,having regard to the written part

Cecilie Tandberg Hallan - for trial) against the State v / Personvernnemnda (Government Advocate v / lawyer Stein-Erik Jahr Dahl). Author Judges Erik Thyness

data to the US in violation of Chapter V of the GDPR. At the same time, the supervisory authority ruled that Chapter V of the GDPR sets out obligation only

Judgment In the legal dispute of Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e. V., represented by its board Wolfgang Schuldzinski, Mintropstraße 27, 40215 Düsseldorf

Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González 7 CJEU, 24 September 2019, C-507/17, Google LLC v Commission nationale

Arr. R.v.St. 1992, z.p.; Not. 1995, IV, 21; BREED. 1992, z.p. 15Compare with: Council of State., 3 June 1993, n.v. Syndicaat Machiensteen en n.v. Swenden

header and url-encoded parameters: https://www.google-analytics.com/collect? v=1&_v=j83&a=1005550321&t=pageview&_s=1&dl=https%3A%2F %2Fwww.rae.es%2F&ul=en-

W. v. Germany, Judgment of 28 June 2018, nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10, §§ 104, 105; on the significance of identifying reporting, see also ECHR, F. v. Germany

its veracity; (v) the content, form and consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application

information]; on § 10 HMG HessVGH, Urt. v. 30.10.1990 - 11 UE 3005/89 - ESVGH 41, 105; VG Frankfurt a.M., Urt. v. 29.07.2011 - 5 K 156/11.F - juris; to

exemption despite the ECHR's Decision of the case Papageorgiou and Others v. Greece that convicted the latter for the violation of the right to education

personal data on their website. This position is repeated in G.C. & Others v. CNIL (section 52). Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

explain that the procedure regulated in § 21 DSAG LSA is not transparent i . S.v. Art. 53 Para. 2 GDPR is. The procedure itself is in this respect simple law

until Helsingør Municipality could demonstrate that the rules in Chapter V of the Data Protection Regulation had been observed. The ban and suspension

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) 02/08/2000, Bergens Tidende and others v. Norway, section 51. The Data Inspectorate apparently distinguishes between

SC C&V Water Control SA for failing to provide information to the DPA during the investigation. The Romanian DPA required information from C C&V Water

The Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) conducted an investigation into ING Bank N.V. Amsterdam – Bucharest Branch, following a personal data breach notification, and

The Romanian DPA (ANSPDCP) imposed a €3000 fine on ING Bank N.V. Amsterdam – Bucharest Branch for unlawfully processing the personal data of a natural

for an 'average reader'. This is an appeal of the earlier case T‑384/20 - OC v European Commission. The claimant (OC) appealed the general court’s decision

EWHC - Sanso Rondon v LexisNexis Risk Solutions UK Ltd (2021) EWHC 1427 (QB) (28 May 2021) QB-2020-002788 Court: EWHC (UK) Jurisdiction: United Kingdom

reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding. In HMRC -v- Fairford Group (in liquidation) and Fairford Partnership Group (in liquidation)

CJEU - Case C-496/17 Deutsche Post AG v. Hauptzollamt Köln Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 4(2) GDPR Article 5(1)(b) GDPR

CJEU - T-709/21 WhatsApp Ireland v European Data Protection Board Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 4(1) GDPR Article 12(1)

The Advocate General Campos Sanchez-Bordona considered that the restriction imposed by Hungary on the financing of civil organisation from abroad is not

The Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe issued his opinion on the Bundesgerichtshof’s (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) request for a preliminary ruling

reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding. In HMRC -v- Fairford Group (in liquidation) and Fairford Partnership Group (in liquidation)

The English High Court held that Lloyds Bank Plc complied with Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA 1998") by providing adequate responses

The United Kingdom High Court held that the Metropolitan Police unlawfully retained the personal data of a minor in breach of the ECHR and the UK Data

CJEU - C‑37/20 and C‑601/20, WM and Sovim SA v Luxembourg Business Registers Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1) GDPR Article

against unauthorised leaks.” The High Court was referred to Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc for guidelines on the application of ‘ensures

the meaning of 'instigate' in light of the judgment in Microsoft Corporation v McDonald and held that the FTT was right to find that Eldon's involvement with

The territorial scope of the right to be forgotten in the context of search engine operators is limited to the versions of the search engines corresponding

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales found the Immigration Exception in the DPA 2018, which excludes the application of certain GDPR rights and principles

JudgmentLEWIS Stadler v Currys Group Limited 13. The approach to strike out applications under the first limb was summarised in Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers

CJEU - Case C‑264/19 Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC and Google Inc. Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 8(2)(a)

C-46/23 Budapest Főváros IV. Kerület Újpest Önkormányzat Polgármesteri Hivatala v. Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság Court: CJEU Jurisdiction:

relation to matters proceeding in open court: Khuja v Times Newspapers Limited [2017] UKSC 49 and HMRC v Banerjee [2009] EMLR 24.
 
 
 7 The Claimant's

judgment is delivered: defendant: V. V., V. to the defender: T. R., V. prosecutor: G. V., U. department ..., Department ... V. letterbox-here

protection working group in accordance with Article 29 on "Google Spain and Inc v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González”

(on the irrefutability of a conclusion in this area, see last BGH, judgment v. v. 2.7.2019 - VI ZR 494/17, NJW 2019, 453; see also Senate, judgment of 7.6

TransaviaAirlinesC.V.has made agreements with sister companyTransaviaFranceS.A.S if TransaviaFranceS.A.SusesthesystemsofTransaviaAirlinesC.V.througha ServiceLevelAgreement

personal data. v. The Internet user makes a choice in the user interface. vi. The CMP generates the TC String and places a euconsent-v2 cookie on the user's

original. Please refer to the Slovenian original for more details. VSL Decision V Kp 9267/2022JedroThe Court of Appeal notes that the court of first instance

distinguished Dunn v Durham County Council [2003] 1 WLR 2305, Lin & Anor v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 2484 and Kololo v Metropolitan

see Warby J in Sube v NGN [2020] EWHC 1125 (QB), [2020] EMLR 25 at H8 (see also, Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin) and Hayden v Dickinson [2020] EWHC

K. v. France paragraph 42 and Brunet v. France paragraph 37. (67) Furthermore, the Court accentuates the gravity of the offence. In S. and Marper v. the

establish his position in as an interlocutor within the organization. " 6 WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p. 16 __________________

law, in particular the data protection and state hospital law (DSG M-V, LKHG M-V). He also referred to an article he wrote about the GDPR in the magazine

juris marg. 16; SächsOVG, B.v. 10.1.2020 - 6 B 297/19 - juris marg. 3; OVG NW, B.v. 10.9.2019 - 8 B 774/19 - juris marg. 5; B.v. 15.5.2018 - 8 A 740/18 -

NdsOVG, B.v. 16.1.2020 - 2 ME 707/19 - juris marginal 14; OVG NW, B.v. 16.1.2020 - 15 B 814/19 - juris marginal 31 et seq.; left open by OVG RP, B.v. 15.1

Human Rights Eerikäinen et al. v. Finland (10.2.2009, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0210JUD000351402), judgment Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway (16.4.2009, ECLI:CE:E

ev37/1M1j5uuFDuLTYiZJJDPBag/bda8d591447971b3df2bccf5aa4e0916/Customer_DPA_v.3_1_-_en_1_Oct_2020.pdf https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2021/cen

1125 (1125 Bakery Andros Theodorou Ltd v. Republic of Cyprus (2009) 3 A.A.D. 577) »In the Bakery A. Theodorou Ltd v. Democracy (2009 ) 3 Α.Α.Δ. 577, a report

technical independence of the Defendant and as such must be declared null; v. The Defendant cannot be punished twice for committing the same act; saw. The

office he is electively domiciled in XXX - applicant - against ING BANK N.V., General Representative for Italy, (tax code VAT number (Omissis)), in the

of Chapter V of the EU GDPR. It followed, that the EDPS held that for such potential and unplanned transfers, a transfer tool under Chapter V is not required

of their medical record, As to the last question, already in C-487/21 F.F. v DSB the CJEU decided that the right to a copy under Article 15(3) GDPR entails

security bankruptcy notification letter sent by FUNDACION SINDROME 5P MENOS DE C.V. in which they inform the AEPD that the previous directors of the Vice-Presidency

The Spanish DPA fined the airline Vueling €18,000 for relying on pre-checked consent boxes that enabled non-essential cookies and for continuing to use

public and usually free of charge (M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, 28.6. 2018, para 90 and Times Newspapers Ltd v United Kingdom (Nos 1 and 2), 10 March 2009, para

requirements for a body for monitoring compliance with rules of conduct (ÜStAkk-V), Federal Law Gazette II No. 264/2019; Section 78 of the General Administrative

the case of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof im Urt. v. 20.02.2018 - VI ZR 30/17, GRUR 2018, 636. The business policy of the defendant

C o l q u in to, s e s to e s e ttim o m e z z o the v v o c a tu ra ulteriorm ente infers: (v) the violation of art. 8 of the card fundamental of the

to the deontological and professional errors committed by V, a complaint is also pending. V, a complaint is also pending with "the competent authority"

case of any claims by third parties against V. [...] related to the functionality of the SYSTEM [...], releases V. from this liability to the extent permitted

The French DPA held that a French online respondent violated Chapter V of the GDPR by using Google Analytics, which led to unlawful transfers of personal

20 2 2020, the statutory name of SanomaMediaNetherlandsB.V.has changed to DPGMediaMagazinesB.V. DPG's activities have remained unchanged. In the period

cases of Vnukovo Airlines (V.A.) and Others v. v. Vnukovo Airlines (V.A.) et al. Attorney General (2001) A.A.D. 969 and Kyriakides v. Republic (2013) 3 A.A

judgments in Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1973) 2 AllE.R 943 and Banker’s Trust v. Shabira (1980) 1 W.L.R 1274 are covered

Amsterdam : [P] , [V] and [C] (last name unknown). They had the following telephone numbers: [P] : [phone no.1] and [phone no.2] V] : [phone no.3] I would

3(1) of Directive 95/46/EC Decided: 16.12.2008 Parties: Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy, Satamedia Oy, Case Number/Name: C-73/07 Satamedia

59; Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) v. France, no. 12268/03, § 47, 23 July 2009; and MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 143, 18

kakšne namene; posredovanju odgovora NIJZ v zvezi z uporabo njegovega podpisa in e-naslova pri oddaji vloge. IP je v predmetnem dopisu zavezanca seznanil,

the Republic of Croatia, Z., with the participation of the interested person V. H., Z., represented by attorney S. B., to the lawyer in Z., for the right

generated by their use 1 Copland v UK of 03-7-2007, Amman v. Switzerland of l 6-02-2000, Kopp v. Switzerland of 25-3- 1 998, Halford v. The United Kingdom of 25-6-1

its veracity; (v) the content, form and consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application

its veracity; (v) the content, form and consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application

its veracity; (v) the content, form and consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application

Article 8 protects, see M.L. and W.W. v. Germany (case numbers 60798/10 and 65599/10) judgment of 28 June 2018 and Hurbain v. Belgium, (case number 57292/16)

Directive 2004/18 / EC". 22 See, e.g., H.v.J., C-373/00, Truley, EU: C: 2003: 110, § 43; C-214/00, Commission v. Spain, May 15, 2003, EU: C: 2003: 276,

data to a third country. In particular, none of the legal bases of Chapter V GDPR could be used for the transfer. As a matter of fact, Google – the data

(hereinafter: Rules of Conduct) of the association "Die Wirtschaftsauskunfteien e.V." are also not capable of legitimising the defendant's interest in the processing

against the Community texts" - CJEU Costa v ENEL, Case No 6/64; Commission v Italian Republic, Case No 39/72; Variola v Italian Financial Administration, Case

according to the provisions of the RGPD. In this context, we remind that art. V alin. (2) of Law no. 129/2018 stipulates that “All references to Law no. 677/2001

means that an amount greater than €250 had to be debited from the credit. (v) On June 27, 2017, NDA Incasso, to whom Hoist had handed over the claim and

Article 6(1) GDPR. The Bulgarian DPA examined a complaint lodged by a citizen, V.V., against a company providing utility services (‘the company’) and a private

that it would address the more general issue of the application of Chapter V of the GDPR to video-conferencing services of companies belonging to a group

external recruitment as an "attempt 10WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p. 14 11WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April

appellant, Attorney at law: Mr. J.M. Molkenboer in Tilburg, by ING BANK N.V. , based in Amsterdam, Intimate, Attorney at law: Mr. I.M.C.A. Reinders Folmer

W.S. Soyo t e g e n c e s s the limited liability company ABN Amro Bank N.V. established in Amsterdam accused to be specified: ABN Amro authorised Mr E

relief proceedings should order ING c.s. and Arrow Global Benelux Holdings B.V. (hereinafter referred to as: Arrow) to remove the codes from the CKI within

Appellant, Attorney at law: Mr. K. Both at Vleuten, at the rate of ABN AMRO BANK N.V., established in Amsterdam, Intimate, Attorney at law: M.J.M.T. Keulaerds,

IT WAS ALREADY ATTENDED TO THE REQUEST RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT WITH C.S.V. XXXXXXXXXX…” SIXTH: On February 20, 2023, a proposed resolution was formulated

activities with [name bv] B.V., his activities take place. in the Netherlands also in [place of residence]. In [name bv] B.V., also established in Rotterdam

housing corporations operating in Groningen and Haren and Essent Netwerk B.V. The aim of the covenant is to combat the domestic cultivation of hemp in the

Treaty establishing the European Community, such as those covered by Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union, and in no case is it applicable to

failed to prove an urgent interest. The complainant asked his bank (ING Bank N.V.) to remove his data from the BKR registration (office for credit) under Article

Stuttgart 1893 e.V.", a registered association under German law, into a stock corporation ("VfB Stuttgart 1893 AG"), VfB Stuttgart 1893 e.V. transferred several

person responsible for the processing who has committed the infringement.>>. V In the present case, it is clear from the investigations carried out by that

ECLI:NL:PHR:2023:935 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 [plaintiff] B.V. (hereinafter: '[plaintiff]') in return for PME Investment Services B.V. (hereinafter: 'PME') PME installed a housing

the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment is “Google Spain and Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González 'C-131/12

criminal proceedings concerned, including of V.S., has been gathered. It is explained in the application that V.S. has been formally accused of an offence

of 10 September 2009 - C-97/08 - EuZW 2009, 816, 821 [Akzo Nobel and others v. Commission], para. 54 et seq.; ECJ, Judgment of 14 December 2006 - T-259/02

advertising. However, in a recent judgment C-252/21 Facebook Inc. and Others v Bundeskartellamt by the Court of Justice (hereinafter “Bundeskartellamt Judgment”)

“augmented” cameras, algorithmic processing. Basis for the referral: Article 10, V. of Law No. 2023-380 of May 19, 2023 relating to the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic

2018 (loc.cit., Art. 18 marginal 38; OVG Lüneburg, U.v. 20.6.2019 - 11 LC 121/17 - para 43; VG Stade, B.v. 9.10.2018 - 1 B 1918/18 - para 30). A common feature

43 of the German Rules of the Administrative Courts (Bayerischer VGH, Urt. v. 9.4.2003 - 24 B 02.646 -, juris, paragraph 22, Sodan, in: Sodan/Ziekow, VwGO

displayed on the basis of his first and last name: i. ... ii. … iii. … iv. ...v. ...vi. ... vii. ... Following the examination of the elements of the file

February 21, 2019, re II .: from May 25, 2018, to IV .: from May 25, 2018, to V .: from May 25, 2018 and to VI .: from May 25th, 2018, I. the unlawful processing

DPD, in accordance with Articles 13.1.b) and 14.1.b) of the GDPR. 6WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p.15 ___________________

Mr. J. van Overdam in Utrecht, by Trigion Brand- en Beveiligingstechniek B.V., established in Woerden, the Netherlands, defendant, hereafter referred to

its website: https://www.ip-rs.si/novice/odgovorno-ravnanje-vseh-je-kljucno-v-casu-virusne-krize-1170/ The decision below is a machine translation of the

in this paragraph, according to the circumstances of each case particular; V By virtue of the provisions of Article 58.2 of the RGPD, the Spanish Agency

Chapter III Chapterrights concerned), Annex IV Chapter V (the controller and the processor), Chapter V (personal datato third countries or international organizations)

outcome. Personvernnemda refers to Google Spain (131/12) and G.C. & Others v CNIL (136/17), as well as earlier decisions by PVN: PVN-2019-02, PVN-2020-08

practitioners, but the statement of reply was submitted on behalf of Z comm.v. 16. On September 28, 2022, the parties will be notified that the hearing will

Bank Melli Iran v Council, T-35/10 and T-7/11, EU:T:2013:397, marginal 21 et seq. 70; Judgment of 29 April 2015, Bank of Industry and Mine v Council, T-10/13

mentioned in this section, depending on the circumstances of each particular case. V Article 73 of the LOPDDG indicates: "Violations considered serious "Based on

"additional measures" within the meaning of the ECJ decision "Schrems II" (ECJ, Rt. v. 16. 7.2020, C-311/18) are necessary to make the transfer compliant with data

mentioned in this section, according to the circumstances of each caseparticular;V Article 73 of the LOPDDG states: ”Infractions considered serious“In accordance

Altice Europe NV v Commission (Case T-425/18, judgment delivered on 22 September 2021, ECLI:EU:T:2021:607), paragraph 362; Romana Tabacchi v Commission (Case

Spain and Google) and in judgment C-136/17 of September 24, 2019 ( GC & Others v CNIL ). This is also in line with established administrative practice from

of the European Court In Joined Cases C-141/12 and C-372/12 YS and M and S v Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum (hereinafter the Immigration

controller unlawfully transferred personal data to the U.S. in violation of Chapter V GDPR. On 20 August 2020 the data subject, represented by noyb, filed a complaint

the SAR on 15/12/2020, upon notification of the complaint by the Cyprus SA. v. As a result of reimbursement provided to the complainant, the controller continued

authorization must be less than three years old; is in accordance with Title V of this deliberation concerning the terms of data hosting and the absence of

Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA "Rīgas satiksme', recital 28. See also CJEU, 11 December 2019, C-708/18, TK v. Asociaţia de Proprietari

remedy against the decision contained in clauses IV and V and the order contained in clauses IV and V , but it may be challenged in an administrative lawsuit

19, 2016, Dragojević v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, January 15, 2015, Peck v. United Kingdom, No. 44647/98, January 28, 2003, Leander v. Sweden, no. 9248/81

2013, Versalis Spa v Commission, C-511/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:386, says: “ 94. Regarding, firstly, the reference to the Showa Denko v Commission judgment

suitable basis for a claim. 27a) 28 A right to information from Section 666 i. V. m. Section 675, Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is out of the question

regard to requirements under directive law (ECJ, judgment of 19.10.2016, Breyer v. Germany, C-582/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:779, para. 62 f.). This must then apply

5 June 2018, Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein v Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH (C-210/16), in the light of the

(Rec. no. 13710/88), spec. par. 29; Copland v. UK, 03.04.2007 (Rec. no. 62617/00), spec. par. 41; Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], 5.9.2017 (Rec. n. 61496/08)

to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case of Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro. This case also concerned CCTV surveillance in the workplace. Here

2013, Versalis Spa v Commission, C-511/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:386, says: “ 94. Regarding, firstly, the reference to the Showa Denko v Commission judgment

person, (iv) there is no evidence of the income level of the defendant and (v) the defendant has been already warned by the police of the unlawfulness of

the fulfillment of a mission carried out for reasons of interest public". V Article 17 of the GDPR, which regulates the right to delete personal data,

In addition, the Applicant considers that the registration infringes Act V of 2013 on the Applicant Civil Code (hereinafter: Under Section 2: 48(1) of

Achmea Bank N.V., established at [place of business] , Lawyers: J.M. Brölmann and S.C.M.J.V.L. Kloppers in Utrecht, and 2 ABN AMRO Bank N.V, established

the principles of personal data transfer outside the EU mandated in Chapter V GDPR. Furthermore, on the data subject’s right to be informed, the controller

n (v. 2.0.), beschikbaar via: https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_201904_dataprotection_by_design_and_by_default_v2.0_

BRUSSELS, JosephStevensstraat7, fifth applicant, 6. LIGUE DES DROITS HUMAINS V.Z.W. c/o, with registered office at 1000 Brussels, Kogelstraat 22, but choosing

but this cannot be stated from the examined data management information. (v) Provide adequate information on the data subject's rights of appeal under

27 November 2019, nor during subsequent discussions with the CNPD. 4 WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p.15 ___________________

charities" (own emphasis). 10 ArrestTK v Asociatia de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA, rn. 47. 11 With analogous reasoning in TK v Asociatia de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA

recommendations made by the Ombudsman for the specific penitentiary area”. V It is considered that the facts exposed, that is, capturing the images with

articles 13 and 14 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and 12 of this organic law. V The art. 83.5 GDPR provides the following: “Violation of the provisions following

article 5.1.f) of the RGPD, allow a penalty of €2,000 (TWO THOUSAND EURO). V GDPR Article 32 Article 32 "Security of treatment" of the GDPR establishes:

attributable to the party claimed, for violation of the content of article 13 RGPD. V The art. 83.5 GDPR provides the following: “Violation of the following provisions:

and 1,b. to be removed from the company's lists by selecting the number 2. v) For the above complaint, the following information is provided in particular:

Normally, this would support erasure in this situation, cf. G.C. & Others v. CNIL, section 67 (C-136/17 24 September 2019). However, on the other hand

on Healthcare Reform Decided: 01.10.2015 Parties: Smaranda Bara and Others v. Președintele Casei Naționale de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa Naţională de Asigurări

public funds. The contract to execute this task was given to City Traffic B.V., now Bureau RMC. Bureau RMC then contracted an unnamed party to do the installation

T0708888500-F0708888501 authoritypersonal data.nl Confidential / Registered CP & AB.V. Attn the management P.O. Box 514 5600AMindhoven Date Our reference March 24

incidents, implementation dates and controls made to verify its effectiveness and (v) any other that it considers relevant. The notification is automatically rejected

whether the active substance, the name of the medicinal product, the diagnosis v or ATC name. All refer to a state of health. Also examples of ATC names referred

necessity and concludes that the adjective 15 CJEU, December 16, 2008, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-524/06, para. 52. 16 Opinion of Advocate General

arising from article 6.1.e) of the GDPR, authorized by article 46.3 of the LOU. v. The corresponding weighting judgment has been carried out and proportionality

Management Company Claims from Loans and Credits has the status of data controller, v the article 4 para. 7 GDPR, as the last admission follows directly from the

into the fulfillment of the obligations required in the matter of LOPDGDD". V In accordance with the allegations and evidence provided in these proceedings

alien to Union law (see ECJ Cases C407/14 , Maria Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA [ECLI:EU:C:2015:831]; also Case C99/15 , Liffers/Producciones

website. 7 See CJEU decision of 16-01-2019 in case C-496/2017 Deutsche Post AG v. Hauptzollamt Köln, sc. 57. 8 See SC decision 517/2018, sc. 12. 9 See L. Mitrou

stakeholder complaint. (iv) NAIH-6956-1/2021. registered stakeholder complaint. (v) NAIH-7276-1/2022. registered stakeholder complaint. (5) Customer 1 NAIH-172-1/2021

BeckRS 2020, 41220, para. 42, which leaves the question open; VG Berlin ruling v. May 24, 2011 - Az. 1 K 133/10, BeckRS 2011, 52814; Bay. State Office for Data

pdf 2 Above, para. 19 and footnote 9. 3 CJEU, C- 496/17, Deutsche Post AG v. Hauptzollamt Köln1, 16 January 2019, §§ 57.7 illegal (subject to the provisions

[applicant], Attorney at law: Mr. M. de Boorder in The Hague, by ING Bank N.V, located in Amsterdam, defendant on appeal, hereinafter referred to as: ING

out activities included in the scope of application of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; c) carried out by a natural person in the exercise of activities

Consumer Finance B.V. (hereinafter: Qander) with a registration of 1 October 2017 as the credit end date. Santander Consumer Finance B.V. (hereinafter: Santander)

THE ABOVE MENTIONED, THE GARANTE Pursuant to Article 57, paragraph 1, letter v) of the Regulation, takes note of the postponement of the deadline for joining

effective legal remedies. The United States represent a third country iSd. Chapter V GDPR. In the absence of a corresponding adequacy decision by the European Commission

awarding authority or concern the bid of a competitor (OLG Karlsruhe, order v. 21.05.2021, 15 Verg 4/21, juris, marginal no. 28; OLG Düsseldorf, order of

informed that the latest version of the StopCovid France application (version v.1.1.*) is based on captcha technology developed by the company ORANGE, which

April 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, paragraph 91, C- 337/15 P, European Ombudsman v. Staelen, ECLI:EU:C:2017:256, paragraph 91). 29. In the light of the above

Authority (AP) has decided to impose an administrative fine on Booking.com B.V. (Booking) in the amount of penalty of € 475,000. The AP is of the opinion

where the spelling appears. In our case, the question of the use of capital V in the prefix "van" represents incorrect personal information. Similar questions

necessary to guarantee the protection of personal data of your customers. v Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: "Each control authority will

ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 – MK v K GmbH See holding for questions referred. Questions referred Is a national

CJEU - C-460/20 TU, RE v Google Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 11 CFREU Article 7 CFREU Article 8 CFREU Article 16 CFREU

The High Court set out its standard of review for the decisions of other state decision-making bodies. The applicant (Deely) sought to invoke the Freedom

CJEU - C-446/21 Schrems v Facebook Ireland (2021) Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(c) GDPR Article 6(1)(a) GDPR Article

CJEU - Case C-291/12 Michael Schwarz v Stadt Bochum Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 1(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004

upon by academics both here https://europeanlawblog.eu/2022/10/17/t-384-20-oc-v-european-commission-the-general-court-falls-out-of-line-on-personal-data/ and

CJEU - C-557/07 LSG v. Tele2 Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29 Decided: 19.02.2009 Parties: LSG-Gesellschaft

CJEU - C-222/20 OC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 21 TFEU Article 67(2) TFEU Article 7 CFREU

CJEU - Case T-557/20 SRB v. EDPS Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 3(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 Decided: 26.04.2023 Parties:

CJEU - C-543/09 Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 12 Directive 2002/58/EC

CJEU - T‑451/20 Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd, v. European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law:

CJEU - C-215/20 JV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 9 GDPR Article 13 GDPR Article 24 CFREU

CJEU - C-141/12 and C-372/12 YS v. Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Charter Directive

2016/680 Decided: Parties: VS Inspektor v Inspektorata kam Visshia sadeben savet Case Number/Name: C-180/21 Inspektor v Inspektorata kam Visshia sadeben savet

CJEU - C‑755/21 P Kočner v Europol Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 82(4) GDPR Article 82(5) GDPR Article 340 TFEU Article

National Health Serviceon clinical episodes associated with a patientof(cf. Annex V);In point 4 of authorizations No. 5795/2012 and 5796/2012, entitled Measures

criteria indicated in article 80 of the LGT and that are indicated in the FD V of this resolution. Consequently, the allegations to the Motion for Resolution

including the claimant, as they are also included in such electoral census list, (v) the communication area claimed is less than other publication media used by

requirements, public officials can be appointed as temporary judges; and (v) the Minister of Justice prescribes the external and internal organisation

CJEU - C-280/22 Kinderrechtencoalitie Vlaanderen and Liga voor Mensenrechten v Belgian State Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article

consent of the owner of the data. (v) it does not establish a simple and free procedure for the member to revoke his or her (v) no simple and free procedure

be postponed until the Court of Justice had ruled on cases C-446/21 Schrems v Facebook Ireland and C-21/23 Lindenapotheke which at the time were both prelimary

CJEU - C‑293/12 and C‑594/12 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung

CJEU - C-741/21 GP v juris GmbH Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 29 GDPR Article 82(1) GDPR Article 82(2) GDPR Article 82(3)

CJEU - C-768/21 TR v Land Hessen Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 57(1) GDPR Article 57(1)(f) GDPR Article 58(2) GDPR Article

Rechnungshof v. Österreichischer Rundfunk and others; Neukomm and Lauermann v. Österreichischer Rundfunk, para. 65; CJEU, C-524/06, Huber v. Germany, December

CJEU - C‑333/22 Ligue des droits humains ASBL, BA v Organe de contrôle de l’information policiè Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law:

was confirmed in Killock & Veale and others v Information Commissioner [2021] UKUT 299 (AAC) and Leighton v Information Commissioner (No.2) [2020] UKUT

CJEU - C‑446/21 Maximilian Schrems v Meta Platforms Ireland Limited Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(b) GDPR Article

investigated. 9. According to the preliminary work of the above-mentioned law (LaV 16/2013 vp), the committee considers the extension of criminal background research

OVG SH, B.v. 26.3.2012 - 2 LA 21/12 - juris note 8 f.; SächsOVG, B.v. 10.1.2020 - 6 B 297/19 - VerkMitt 2020, No. 36 = juris note 3; NdsOVG, B.v. 11.7.2012

(see Niemietz v Germany (1992) 16 EHRR 97, para 29; [Volkov v Ukraine (Application No 21722/11) (2013) 57 EHRR 1, para 165]; and [Bărbulescu v Romania (Application

a result. Following an analysis of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc (discussing Section 13 DPA 1998) and Gulati v MGN Ltd (discussing tort for misuse of private

in the terms required 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

violation of the articles mentioned therein and, in particular, the following: " v) Failure to comply with the obligation to appoint a data protection officer

the Mayor and Aldermen of Uithoorn of 4 April 2019, reference 2018-084131; V. instructs the mayor and aldermen of Uithoorn to take a new decision within

Knuddels must also bear the costs of the proceedings (§§ 105, 107 OWiG 1.V.m. with § 464 (1), § 465 StPO). The procedural fee is 5% of the fine, but at

violation of the articles mentioned therein and, in particular, the following: v) Failure to comply with the obligation to appoint a data protection officer

Language(s): Finnish Original Source: Finlex (in FI) Initial Contributor: V

DT&V. . The DT&V has the file documents drawn up and collected by the respondent in the context of the assignment, so that the GDPR request to DT&V concerns

Ver- salis Spa v Commission, C-511/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:386, says: “ 94.Regarding, first of all, the reference to the Showa judgment Denko v Commission, cited

practice to see whether it is compliant with the SCHREMS II ruling and Chapter V of the GDPR. The decision is not yet published on the Council of State website

the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and inc v. AEPD and Mario Costeja ”C-131/12), according to which:“ There is a basic difference

see Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 6 October 2015, Schrems v DPC, C-362/14. 5 Compare mutatis mutandis the reasoning of the European Data

individual ( to that effect , Lingens v. Austria ; judgment of 18 July 2000 in vener v. Turkey ; judgment of 29 March 2001). Thoma v. Luxembourg, 29 March 2001

paragraph (3) shall not prejudice the rights and freedoms of other persons. V. On the right of presentation: The Federal Administrative Court is a court

Quadrature, A v Gewestelijke Stedenbouwkundige Ambtenaar van het Department ruimte Vlaanderen (Case C-24/19) [2021] CMLR 9 ("Gewestelijke"), and B v Latvijas

cases to date: Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini D.O.O [2015] EWHC 3380 (QB), [2016] 1 WLR 1414 (Sir Michael Tugendhat); Huda v Wells [2017] EWHC 2553

sentence 1 SGB V, insofar as this is necessary for the examinations, advice and expert opinions in accordance with sections 275 SGB V to 275d SGB V. According

be/publications/decision-quant-au-fond-n- 38-2021.pdf 8 CJEU, December 16, 2008, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-524/06, ECLI: EU: C: 2008: 724, para. 52. 9

personal data or third parties other than recipientsSecond plea for rectification v. request for erasureThird ground - permitted transfer of personal data to other

accredit the legitimacy for the treatment of the data of the claimant's clients. V Once the resolution proposal was formally notified, the respondent submitted

principles and guarantees set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679; V Article 58 (2) GDPR reads: ‘Each supervisory authority shall have all of the

received a copy of the letter. The guidance service for the Romani people/Taters v/ A was informed about the case in a letter from the tribunal on 2 May 2023

to the requirements of the European human right protection (see also VwGH v. 03.09.2015, Zl. Ro 2015/21/0032). According to the case law of the European

International B.V., established in the Netherlands, it was determined that the lead supervisory authority for Ridetech International B.V. would be the Dutch

established case law of the Chamber: U.v. 8.8.2019 - AN 14 K 19.00272 - BeckRS 2019, 30069, marginal number 24; U.v. 7.12.2020 - AN 14 K 18.02503 - BeckRS

the present case is examined below in points 36 et seq. 8CEDH, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-524/06, December 16, 2008 Decision on the merits

situation as follows: "i) the e-mail message received by the Complainant is the V E-mail intended for the Intended Recipient; ii) the sheet of the Intended Recipient

burden to a natural person, a reprimand may be issued instead of a fine.” (Part V Fundamentos de Derecho). Share your comments here! Share blogs or news articles

a party in the probate proceedings before the district court V *** to GZ 3 A 1 * 8 / * v and before the Swiss division office of the city *** as inheritance

Costello J. (as he then was) in Barry v. Buckley [1981] I.R. 306, the observations of McCarthy J. in Sun Fat Chan v. Osseous Ltd. [1992] 1 I.R. 425 and the

proceedings is well-founded (BVerwG, U.v. 18 April 2013 - 10 C 9.12 - NVwZ 2013, 1344 marginal no. 22; BayVGH, B.v. 18 March 2020 - 7 CE 19.2143 - juris

and in view of the UI v Österreichische Post case discussed below. 8. UI v Österreichische Post (Case C-300/21) Decision 8.1 UI v Österreichische Post (Case

additional explanations (cf. BayVGH, B.v. 7.7.2014 - 7 C 14.1020; B.v. 13.7.2010 - 11 C 10.1212; B.v. 8.1.2007 - 9 C 05.532; B.v. 12.12.2006 - 9 C 06.2407 - juris

including the interaction mechanisms between the various factors;   Z V To Hon To E :G: D D t ot 3 of 13 m m F Fi Register number generates e 32022

In this decision, Blauw Research B.V., a market research agency (controller) had a processing agreement with NEBU B.V., a software provider (processor)

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V Penalty for violation of article 5.1.f) of the RGPD The balance of the circumstances

International B.V. and Yandex LLC to prohibit and suspend data transfers to the Russian Federation. Data Controllers Ridetech International B.V. (Yango taxi

the CRA process should be for ID&V. A Privacy Officer was involved in this at an early stage the nature and purpose of ID&V are determined. It has also been

NdsOVG, B.v. 16.1.2020 - 2 ME 707/19 - juris marginal 14; OVG NW, B.v. 16.1.2020 - 15 B 814/19 - juris marginal 31 et seq.; left open by OVG RP, B.v. 15.1

account of the GBA. The GBA summarizes as follows: 1. On June 14, 2019, Mr. V (hereinafter: 'the complainant') lodge a complaint with the Data Protection

Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Dutch Administration of Taxes, C-26-62, ECLI: EU: C: 1963: 1; CJEU judgment of 15 July 1964, Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L., C-6-64,

received personally by V. Sotirova. The principles of legality and good faith have been violated. This is because on September 4, 2021, V. Sotirova notified

out activities falling within the scope of application of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; c) carried out by a natural person in the exercise of exclusively

principles and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

information device a connection code or internet address to this information." V Allegations alleged This Agency has no evidence that the claimed party has

clear that she withdrew from her Twitter the document posted immediately. V Formally notified of the initiation agreement, the complainant has submitted

of the ECHR of 27 June 2017, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, CE:ECHR:2017:0627JUD000093113, section 165)”. In such a way, that

including the conditions for consent under articles 5, 6, 7 and 9; (...)". V The corrective powers available to the Spanish Protection Agency of Data, as

principles and guarantees set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V The LOPDGDD in its Article 77, Regime applicable to certain categories of the

Confirmed Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) Leave.EU and Eldon v Information Commissioner Original Language(s): English Original Source: ICO

the information required by Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. V In this case, it is claimed that the web page of the claimed person does not

plus B.V. from 1 July 2018 to 1 January 2019. This organization was your employer, but you worked for another company (********). P-Services plus B.V. has

requirement of independence (for example, Case C-288/12, European Commission v Hungary, EU: C: 2014: 237). Although the Data Protection Regulation does not

the European Union (ECJ) of 16-01-2019 in case C496 / 2017 Deutsche Post AG v. Hauptzollamt Koln. The existence of a legal basis (art. 6 GGP) does not release

third country to be lawful, it needs to have a valid legal basis under Chapter V of the GDPR. It pointed out that there was a discrepancy between the intended

Smolczevski v. Poland and M. L. and W. W. v. Germany, and the case of SEU Camera di commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore

and C. Vieira Guerra, in the capacity of authorized representative, –       V. Bottka and H. Kranenborg, in the capacity of authorized representative, on

Chapter V of the General Data Protection Regulation. For the transfer of personal data, there must be a transfer basis in accordance with Chapter V of the

inspection pursuant to art. 15 GDPR under I, III, IV and V 4.2. The requests under I, III, IV and V of [applicant] are aimed at gaining access to the personal

Justice, judgment of 17 December 2010 - V ZR 45/10, NJW 2011, 749, paragraph 8 ff; Judgment of March 1, 2013 -V ZR 14/12, NJW 2013, 1809 para. 12 et seq

Harvest ASA v European Commission, para. 344. See too CJEU, Case C-10/18 P, 64wi ASA v European Commission. GC, Case T-704/14, Marine Harvest ASA v European

particular, the controller would have transferred data in violation of Chapter V GDPR. Therefore, on 18.08.2020 the data subject filed a complaint against the

she then was) in the case of Doorstep Dispensaree Ltd v Information Commissioner (EA/2020/0065/V) in the context of MPNs [5]. The standard of proof to

5 WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p.25 6WP 243 v.01, version revised and adopted on April 5, 2017, p.25 7WP 243 v.01, version

Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (Application no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72) 27Ibid., para. 82. 28Case of Öztürk v. Germany (Application

ber2019,TK v Asociaţiade Proprietari blocM5A -ScaraA,C-708/18,EU:C:2019:1064, paragraph37. 144 Judgment of 18 December 2008, Heinz Huber v. BundesrepublikDeutschland

fulfill their obligations under Section 18 Para. 1 and 2, Section 35 AVBWasserV (V.v. June 20, 1980, BGBl I p. 750 ) the following obligation to determine the

together with the actions of cessation of protection of consumer interests (Title V). And it is that the subjective and objective scope of law 34/2002 coincides

LOPDGDD, with respect to paragraph k) of the aforementioned Article 83.2 RGPD. V C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/9 Finally, the

the RGPD, it allows setting a penalty of 2,000 euros (two thousand euros). V Measures Article 58.2 of the GDPR establishes the corrective powers available

principles and guarantees set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58(2) of the GPRS provides: "Each supervisory authority shall have

breach of the articles mentioned in that one, and in particular the following: (v) Failure to comply with the obligation to appoint a data protection representative

the ban on using this data for the purposes described in article L. 1461-1 V of the public health code; compliance with the safety standards applicable

principles and guarantees laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58(2) of the GPRS states: 'Each supervisory authority shall have all

principles and guarantees laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58(2) of the GPRS states: 'Each supervisory authority shall have all

transferring personal data in the US without a legal basis in accordance with Chapter V GDPR. On 12 August 2020, the data subject visited the website politis.com.cy

all other tasks related to the protection of personal data (Article 57, 1., v) GDPR) .2 21. In that regard, the Disputes Chamber rules that Article 58WOG

accordance with § 9(1) Insolvenzordnung (Insolvency Code) and § 3(1)(2) InsBekV (Regulation on public notifications in insolvency proceedings on the internet)

Sentence 1, Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 11 lit. b) i. V. m. § 3 Abs. 1 Nr. 1, 4 UKlaG as well as from § 3a i. V. m. Section 8 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 3 No. 3 UWG

public scrutiny (cf. ECtHR judgment of 6 October 2022, Khural and Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan , CE:ECHR:2022:1006JUD005506911, § 41 and case law cited there)"

managing director, franchise partner X *** Gaststätten GmbH I Administration V *** Strasse 5 * 1 A-1 ** 0 Vienna U *** I * P *** I N *** I S *** Gaststätten

absence of any communication of information to the personconcerned.91. In its YS v. Minister voor immigratie of July 17, 2014, CJEU 28 highlights thescope of

main grievances7 Eur Court. HR, May 4, 2000, Rotaru v. Romania.8 Eur. HR, September 2, 2010, Uzun v. Germany, § 66.9 Joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and

after an immediately preceding legal dispute (VwGH v. 04.07.2016, Ra 2016/04/0014; see also BVwG v. 27.05.2020, Zl. W214 2228346-1/16E). In the light of

AlticeEuropeNV v Commission, T 425/18, ECLI:EU:T:2021:607, paragraph 362; Judgement of theGeneral Court of 5 October 2011, Romana Tabacchi v Commission,CaseT‑11/06

by the plaintiff (cf. also VG Hannover, U.v. 27.11.2019 - 10 A 820/19 - juris marginal note 19; VG Mainz, U.v. 17.12.2020 - 1 K 778/19.MZ - juris marginal

authorityAP Uber B.V. is the Dutch branch of Uber, Uber Technologies Inc. is located in the United States andistheparentcompanyof,among others,UberB.V.JointsettingUberB

registrations. Aegon Levensverzekering N.V. has submitted a statement of defence. The request regarding Aegon Levensverzekering N.V. [applicant] c.s. subsequently

; Herbricht, jurisPRITR/2020; LG Frankfurt, B.v. 15.10.2020 - 2-03 O 356/20 - juris LS; LG Darmstadt, U.v. 26.5.2020 - 13 O 244/19 - juris marginal number

principles and guarantees laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. V Article 58(2) of the GDPR provides: "Each supervisory authority shall have

prohibition of using this data for the purposes described in article L. 1461-1 V of the public health code; compliance with the security standards applicable

premises in order to manage any documentation that may arise at the last moment. (v) The offices will sign a delivery note showing the documentation from the office

Court of the Hague Trade team - interim relief judge Case number: C/09/581973 v KG ZA 19/1024 Judgment in preliminary relief proceedings of 13 November 2019

highest category provided for in the system of graduated administrative fines, v. the fact that, from the information brought to the attention of the Authority

information required by the articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " V In this case, it is taken into account that the respondent collected the personal

conditions of legality of the treatment in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

said treatment, or e) for the formulation, exercise or defense of claims". V Conclusion During the processing of this procedure, the claimed entity has

the LOPDGDD, regarding section k) of the aforementioned article 83.2 RGPD. V Finally, the sanction to be imposed should be graduated in accordance with

the photographs and names that have motivated this sanctioning procedure. V In accordance with the indicated precepts, and without prejudice to what results

legality of the treatment established in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. V This offense may be punished with a fine of a maximum of € 20,000,000 or, in

The District Court of Gelderland held that Mollie B.V. fulfilled its obligation regarding a data subject's access request. The data subject did not substantiate

the means of direct marketing and should be treated separately. The Company V. obtained from potential customers (i.e. persons applying for a loan) and customers

personal data processed unlawfully within seven days of the judgment date, V. V. Criteo to be Territos around - within seven days of the judgment date all

additional knowledge (cf. BayVGH, B.v. 7.3.2022 - 4 CS 21.2254 - BayVBl 2022 , 412 para. 27; Swiss Federal Supreme Court, U.v. 5.1.2021 - 1C_273/2020 - EuGRZ

court with conclusive arguments (cf. BVerfG, B.v. 23.6.2000 - 1 BvR 830/00 - NVwZ 2000, 1163/1164; B.v. 23.3 .2007 – 1 BvR 2228/02 – BayVBl 2007, 624)

personal data breach. The Italian DPA launched an investigation into Uber B.V., with registered office in Amsterdam, and Uber Technologies Inc., with registered

of EUR 28,859,291.41. 1 Brussels Court of Appeal (Market Court section), X. v APD, Judgment 2020/1471 of 19 February 2020 I PAGE 01-00003026574-0□09-□□34-□6-□1-

controller are notable. As stated in section 2.1, YOUR V is set under a law, namely the SUWI. U W V is a independent administrative body of the central government

scrapers. Unlike, for example, in the district court of Munich I with judgment v. 9.12.2021 - 31 O 16606/20, BeckRS 21/41707, the case decided is not sensitive

for obtaining credit (Federal Court of Justice, judgment of June 1, 1973 - V ZR 134/72, NJW 1973, 1793 under II 2) or for the management of tax matters

the supply of electricity and gas with Budget Thuis B.V., until 1 January 2022 called NutsServices B.V. (hereinafter: 'Budget Home'). From the trade register

signed by the defendant. This letter was co-signed by a second person, Mr. V, against whom the complainant had also testified complaint. As this person

determines that the new decision to be taken may only be appealed to the Division; V.      orders the Municipal Executive of Venlo to reimburse legal costs incurred

Language(s): Finnish Original Source: Finlex (in FI) Initial Contributor: V

III. declares the objection unfounded; IV. otherwise confirms the ruling; V. stipulates that this ruling will replace the decision of the Mayor and Aldermen

another procedure which also concerned the question of "categories of recipients v. actutal recipients" until the CJEU has delivered its judgment - see 6 Ob 63/21i

had been registered with CNPD or that data collection by it was authorized. v.-What, in our opinion and save the best opinion, determines that the evidence

in those cases where there are disputes between them and any interested." V In accordance with the provisions transcribed for the purpose of fixing the

until the 5th of the second following month or immediately following business. V In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, the This Resolution

articles 13 and 14 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and 12 of this organic law. " V C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/7 Each offense

principles and guarantees set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58(2) of the GPRS provides: "Each supervisory authority shall have

principles and guarantees laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58(2) of the GPRS provides: "Each inspecting authority shall have all

proceeding was notified sanctioner, without having made any allegations to it. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

cases in which there are controversies between those and any interested." V In accordance with the provisions transcribed in order to fix the amount of

be deduced that his email address was accessed by a non-authorized person. v. When the complainant informed the controller that someone else used his email

Spain, (iv) the advantages obtained by Twitter with such infringement, and (v) the sales volume of Twitter], the AEPD decided to impose a fine of €30,000

that moment ston_ den er different/ende people behind me at the checkout. A v them made the comment that it is not possible for a loyalty card to have the

International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko) and Others v Secretary of State for Transport, C-308/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:312), paragraph

should prove that the information communications indicated in Basis of Law V of the proposal for resolution formulated had been sent to the interested parties

4. 3R.v.St., June 29, 1993, e.g. Vedesca, no. 43,526. 4 MAREEN, D., The motives of the administrative legal act, TBP 2000, 20-38. See also: R.v.St., Droeshout

provisions such as in Section 30 (1) OWiG is not covered by Article 83 (8) DPA. V. The data subject, as data controller, has culpably violated Article 32(1)

transferring personal data to Meta Platforms Inc. (Meta U.S.) in violation of Chapter V of the GDPR. Meta Ireland had been transferring personal data to the U.S. despite

contract for this has been awarded to [company 1] B.V., now [company 1]. This agency has appointed [company 2] B.V. for the technology. enabled. 1.2 On July 16

Service71; Service71 uses YouForce as the HRM tool which is offered by RAET B.V. On 15 January 2018 the municipality denied appellant’s request to delete his

liability company NAUTADUTILH AVOCATS LUXEMBOURG S.AR.L., entered on List V of Table of the Luxembourg Bar Association, established and having its registered

legally defined. However, administrative acts within the meaning of § 35 VwVfG M-V and according to § 35 VwVfG fall unproblematically under it. The right of action

ruling in the Cumpănă si Mazăre v. Romania case, the Cârstea si Grecu v. Romania case, the Morar v. Romania case, the Barb v. Romania case, and such a limitation

Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgaspašvaldības SIA „Rīgas satiksme”, recital 28. See also CJEU, 11 December 2019, C-708/18, TK v Asociaţia de Proprietari

municipal executive of Almelo, defendant, authorized representative: mr. A.V. Abdul. Process sequence In the decision of 19 November 2019 (the primary decision)

and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)” V Penalty for violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR For the purposes of deciding

B. VANDERGUCHT Registrar 1 yr\ • t i \ B. VANDERGUCHT ( 11\ 0. DUGARDYN \\ V - rPAGE 01-00002223628-0011-0011-01-01-� � � _J l

including conditions for con sentiment under articles 5, 6, 7 and 9; (…) ”. V The corrective powers available to the Spanish Protection Agency Data, as the

Telecommunications Law 9/2014, of May 9 (hereinafter,LGT) deals with Title III, Chapter V, the " Rights of end users" andgrants, among others, the right to oppose unwanted

of lawfulness of the treatment in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. ” V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each supervisory authority

any measures in order to prevent such issues to happen again in the future, (v) there has been no collaboration of the defendant with the AEPD, (vi) there

intentionality is accredited of the accused by way of gross negligence at least. V Article 83.5 RGPD provides the following: "Violations of the following provisions

of the treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679”. V Sanction proposal In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed

avoid creditors; - Pex Real Estate B.V. would have been set up to fall under the rules; - I Property Management B.V. would have been a relaunch of Spot

it has been submitted by Yards Deurwaardersdiensten B.V. Prior to Can Yards Deurwaardersdiensten B.V. invoke the GDPR? 3.       The answer to this question

(16/6/2015, Bsw 64569/09, Delfi AS v. Estonia, Rz 147; December 7, 2021, Bsw 39378/15, Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria, Rz 76, 95). The ECtHR

contract as well as his subsequent statements (see also LG Köln, Judgment v. v. 13.04.2016 - 28 O 384/15, p. 10, Annex B7, p. 159/168 of the original version)

decides on the data protection complaint of Roland A*** (complainant) from **** V***stadt of 4 June 2018 (in the version of the rectification of defects of 7

principles and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.” v In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

mentioned in this section, according to the circumstances of each case particular; V Violation of article 6.1 of the GDPR can be sanctioned with a fine of 20,000

treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. (…)”. V Penalty for violation of article 6.1 of the GDPR The corrective powers available

submitted (under point II. 7., slightly expanded content also under point V . 1. to 3 of the pleading) as follows (emphasis not reproduced): "Even if the

articles 13 and 14 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and 12 of this organic law.” v In this case, this Agency has confirmed that the respondent requires his customers

RGPD: the violation of article 32, offense typified in its article 83.4.a). V In order to establish the administrative fine to be imposed, they must observe

the infraction of what is established in the art- article 19 of the RGPD. v conclusion The principle of presumption of innocence prevents imputing an administrative

in article 13 of the GDPR, allows a penalty of €2,000 (two thousand euro). V In accordance with the provisions of article 58.2 d) of the GDPR, according

TD/01965/2017 issued by the Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

responsibility of the responsible for the treatment to demonstrate its compliance. V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

494-24678, in so far as it dismisses [the appellant's] objection as unfounded; V. provides that the new decision to be taken by the Minister of Agriculture

alien to Union law (see ECJ Cases C407/14 , Maria Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA [ECLI:EU:C:2015:831]; also Case C99/15 , Liffers/Producciones

conditions for the treatment consent in accordance with articles 5, 6, 7 and 9; V Article 77 section 1 of the LOPDGDD provides: "The regime established in this

in those cases where there are disputes between them and any interested." V In deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and the amount of that

phase of the treatment and complementary to the duty of professional secrecy. V Article 83.5 a) of the RGPD, considers that the infringement of “the principles

nature - the result would be to empty the principle of legality of its content. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (Federal Union of German Consumer Organizations, Germany) succesfully brought

the legal dispute Stuttgart - Plaintiff and appellant - attorney of record: v Belgium - Defendant and Appellant represented by: For damages following a breach

the rights established in articles 15 to 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.” v According to the available evidence, it must be taken into account that the

Data Protection Regulation) the Data Protection Regulation in Annexes III-V. and VI / A. Chapter 3 and Sections 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23-24

Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbande - Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband v Planet49 GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2019:801 ('Planet49'). The Dispute Chamber delivered

and December 19, 2019 end date of credit; ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (hereinafter: ABN ARMRO Bank N.V. (hereinafter: ABN AMRO) with the following registrations:

ECHR 27 October 1995, No 20190/92 (C.R. v. United Kingdom), paragraph 42 and ECHR 29 April 2002, No 2346/02 (Pretty v. United Kingdom), paragraph 65. 14 See

and transferred to the US, whether or not this transfer infringed Chapter V GDPR, also considering the Schrems II judgment. The investigation was limited

by Ms XX, through her lawyer, with this Authority against Bank Rewire EU B.V.; HAVING CONSIDERED the IMI cooperation procedure pursuant to art. 56 (n. 350195)

Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, 27 November 2007; judgment M.L. and W.W. vs. Germany, June 28, 2008 and Times Newspapers Limited v. United Kingdom judgment

is only the question of whether the main issue has been resolved (BayVGH, B.v. 1.12.2003 - 3 CE 03.2098 - NVwZ-RR 2004, 623 with further references; Schoch

cases (Sørensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark [GC], 2006, § 54). (Sigurður A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland, 1993, § 35; Vörður Ólafsson v. Iceland, 2021, § 45)]] 405

Protection Regulation fulfillment of the contract according to paragraph (v) EDM e-mails, on the other hand, promote the Data Controller's products and

OLG Dresden v. 12.1.2021, 4 U 1600/20, marginal no. 31 - juris; OLG Dresden v. 20.08.2020, 4 U 784/20, marginal no. 32 - juris; AG Hannover v. 09.03.2020

Rights in the case of Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary of 4 December 2018 No. 11257/16, in the cases of M.L. and W.W. v. Germany of 28 June 2018 Nos 60798/10

plaintiff's representative with an overview of the correspondence from DT&V and the municipality [place of residence] and of the IND and the municipality

('the case - law') cases) 5 II.1. NAIH / 2018/4939 / V In investigation case NAIH / 2018/4939 / V, the complainant complained that the a third party customer

No. NAIH/2018/795/V, and the Customer did not fulfill the in full the notice of the Authority with case file number NAIH/2018/795/4/V, therefore repeated

access or deletion requests from DPG Media Magazines B.V., formerly Sanoma Media Netherlands B.V.' dated September 29, 2021. In that report, the defendant

Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner and others [2008] EWHC 1084 and b.    South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner

that a “risk-based approach” to data transfers is not compatible with Chapter V of the GDPR. This judgement stems from one of the 101 complaints filed by the

contract between the Applicant and defendant by Mr X in the meeting of the Y e.V. on the evening of .... 2020 in Z-Straße in Frankfurt am Main. Order the defendant

Grand Chamber Judgment in the case of Bărbulescu v. Romania, (application no. 61496/08) 15 Case of Bărbulescu v. Romania, application no. 61496/08, 05 September

167See, inter alia, Case T-425/18, Altice Europe NV v Commission, para. 362; Case T‑11/06, Romana Tabacchi v Commission, para. 266. See too EDPB, Decision 01/2022

Court July 14, 2009, no. 23857C and 23871C of the docket, Pas. adm. 2022, V° Contentious procedure, n° 2 and other references cited therein). The interest

Section 44 (1) sentence 2 BDSG and Article 17 (1) c) EuGVVO i. V. m. Art. 18 (1) EuGVVO, each i. V. m. §§ 12, 13 ZPO. Since the provisions establish the same

purpose' . 39. This is also underlined by the Court in its judgment 'TK t v. Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5AScaraA' of 11 December 2019 : "The data subject's

legality of the treatment established in article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.” v In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

as well as to provide means of proof of compliance with the requirements. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

cancelled in 2019, as the claimant did not acknowledge any relation with such, (v) the defendant declared that the only reason in order to check the claimant's

principles and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

measures to guarantee the protection of the personal data of its clients. v Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: "Each control authority will

the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and inc v. AEPD and Mario Costeja” C-131/12), according to which: “There is a basic difference

the above, the Authority has decided in accordance with the operative part. V. Other issues 7 The powers of the Authority are limited by the Infotv. Section

the data (iii); the rights in relation to their personal data (iv); cookies (v); security of their personal data (vi) and updating of their personal data

adequate measures to guarantee the security and confidentiality of the data. V In determining the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions of articles

character, were abandoned, allowing access to the data contained in them. V The GDPR defines personal data security breaches as “All those security violations

as well as to provide means of proof of compliance with the requirements. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

responsible or the possibility of exercising their rights in this regard. V The corrective powers available to the Spanish Agency for the Protection of

authority of control by contacting the Spanish Agency for Data Protection " V By virtue of the provisions of article 58.2 of the RGPD, the Spanish Agency

to as Brain, represented by mr. I.C.M.A. Reinders Folmer, against Ziggo B.V., which is located in Utrecht, that the defendant is on appeal and has lodged

the above, the Authority has decided in accordance with the operative part. V. Other issues The powers of the Authority are limited by the Infotv. Section

referred to the EMD's judgment in Satakunnan Markkinapörssi OY and Satamedia OY v. Finlandfrom 27 June 2017, case 931/13 which concerned a media company's publication

the treatment established in article 6 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679. " V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

budget to give validity to the manifestation of the will of the affected party. V In the present case, the assessment of the set of factual elements in the sanctioning

character - the result would be to empty the content of the principle of legality. V In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the provisions

cases in which there are controversies between those and any interested." V In accordance with the provisions of the RGPD in its art. 83.2, when deciding

2016/679. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 8/9 V Article 58.2 of the RGPD provides the following: “Each control authority will

not based on the sources of Chapter V of the Regulation. Regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Chapter V, it should be borne in mind that according

Yordanov and Toshev (journalists) v. Bulgaria is similar. Upholding the opinion expressed above in Kasabova and Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, the Court adds that in

III (rights of the data subject), IV (responsibility literal and processor), V (transfer of personal data to third countries or to international organizations)

24 September 2019, G.C et al. v CNIL, ECLI:EU:C:2019:773, § 56 et seq. 18 ECtHR, 25 May 1988, 10737/83, Müller and Others v. Switzerland, § 27. Decision

personal data by V.M.P. Sp. z o.o. based in W, President of the Office for Personal Data Protection by establishing an infringement by V.M.P. Sp. z o.o.

Niemietz v. Allemagne, 16.12.1992 (rec. No. 13710/88), spec. Para. 29; Copland v. UK, 03.04.2007 (ref. No. 62617/00), spec. Par. 41; Bărbulescu v. Romania

Niemietz v. Allemagne, 16.12.1992 (rec. No. 13710/88), spec. Para. 29; Copland v. UK, 03.04.2007 (ref. No. 62617/00), spec. Par. 41; Bărbulescu v. Romania

fines" (judgment of the Court of 16 November 2000, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission, C‑286/98 P, ECR I‑9925, paragraph 66). Jurisprudence only requires

Data of social circumstances (hobbies, style of life, marital status, etc.), (V) Data on energy consumption and derived lifestyle habits of these , (VI) Economic

March 24, 2021. 9 1 Court of Justice December 20, 2017 (Case C-434/16 P. Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner) ECLI: EU: C: 2017: 994. 2 See also, among others

controller and the processor comply with the conditions set out in Chapter V of the General Data Protection Regulation and subject to other provisions of

affidavit. Mr. Doolin’s grounding affidavits were responded to by Mr. John V. O’Dwyer, Deputy Commissioner in the Office of the DPC. Mr. O’Dwyer’s first

Boom Legal 2020, p. 466 (V.E.T. Dorenberg). 121 H.J.J. Leenen et al., Health Law Handbook, The Hague: Boom Legal 2020, p. 466-469 (V.E.T. Dorenberg). See also

number and placement of the cameras, iv) the short term of the measure and v) the limited access to the personal data. 14. The respondent further explains

German Consumer Protection Association (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.), while the defendant is LinkedIn Ireland Unlimited Company, an Irish social

liability RAINBOG PHARMACY BAVEL B.V., established in Bavel, 2. the private company with limited liability PHARMACY TOLAKKER B.V., established in Bavel, 3. the

authorization must be less than three years old; is in accordance with Title V of this deliberation concerning the terms of data hosting and the absence of

Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA “Rīgas satiksme”, recital 28. See also CJEU, 11 December 2019, C-708/18, TK v/Asociaţia de Proprietari

representative: mr. S.G. Klatt (PrivacyPunt B.V.), against the private company NederWoon Verhuurmakelaars B.V., established in Apeldoorn, defendant party

Ekker in Amsterdam, against the private company with limited liability UBER B.V., Based in Amsterdam, defendant, not published. 1 The procedure 1.1. The course