Search results

for indirect determinability: BeckOK Datenschutzrecht Wolff/Brink, DSGVO Article 4 marginal no. 17). Contrary to its obligation as the responsible body, Knuddels

infringement of Article 32 GDPR. Therefore, the Spanish DPA issued a warning sanction for each violation of Article 5(1)(f) and Article 32 GDPR. AEPD highlighted

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

6(1)(b), 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c) GDPR? The Spanish DPA (AEPD) deemed itself competent under Article 58(2) GDPR in conjunction with Article 47 of the Spanish Data

Protection Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned

National Defense violated the principle of dataminimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. It reasoned that the Type A Certificate's general purpose is to

requirements of Article 9 GDPR. In the DSB held that the processing violated Articles 5, 6 and 9 GDPR: Consent under Articles 6(1)(a), 7 and 9(2)(a) GDPR cannot

data is a form of processing as referred to in the GDPR (article 4 sub 2 GDPR). Article 6 of the GDPR provides that the processing of personal data is only

possible non-compliance with the data minimisation principle, as per Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The decision is the consequence of a complaint submitted by a Spanish

violation of Article 5, Article 6, and Article 25 GDPR. It ordered the controller to comply with the data subject's erasure request pursuant to Article 17(1)(d)

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

lawfulness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a), 6 and 9 GDPR) as well as its obligations under Article 12, 14, 15 and 27 GDPR. The DPA fined the controller

integrity and confidentiality when processing personal data according to Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. The AEPD confirmed that there was no Facebook profile with the name

mentioned in the Art. 14 GDPR. 4) No, in the assessment of the President of UODO, sending out information related to Art. 14 GDPR by regular mail to the

es Page 4 4/5In accordance with the provisions of article 39.1. c) of the LSSI, minor infractions canwill be sanctioned with a fine of up to € 30,000, establishing

request under Article 21 GDPR can be made at any time and several times. It also found that a provisional measure can be granted under Article 21 GDPR if an urgent

purposes and means of such activity, by virtue of article 4.7 of the GDPR. For its part, article 5.1.c) of the GDPR regulates the “principles relating to processing”

en hij deze zaak niet wenst verder te zetten. 2. Rechtsgrond Artikel 12.4 AVG 4. Wanneer de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke geen gevolg geeft aan het verzoek

UC (the controller); an access request under Article 15 GDPR and an erasure request under Article 17 GDPR. Regarding the erasure request specifically,

municipalities has not complied with Article 28 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. Article 32 (3) (f), cf. Article 32, as the company has not implemented

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

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

pursuant to Article 12(3) of the AVG. If, as in this case, such a decision is taken by an administrative body, then, pursuant to Article 34 of the GDPR Implementing

limitation as used in Article 5 of the GDPR and that Article 17(1)(d) of the GDPR also does not apply.c. Is the method of registration inadequate?4.14. [applicant]

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

where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section 165 or Article 77 of the GDPR, the Commissioner (a) fails to take appropriate steps to respond

According to Article 94 of the GDPR "references to the repealed directive must be understood as references to the [GDPR]". 84. Under Article 4, paragraph

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

has been received. Does the GDPR allow the data controller to ignore a request for erasure? The AEPD found that Article 12 GDPR does not allow the data controller

revision is admissible according to Article 133 (4) B-VG. The statement must be briefly justified. According to Art. 133 para. 4 B-VG, the appeal is not permissible

6www.aepd.es28001 - Madridsedeagpd.gob.es Page 4 4/7FOUNDATIONS OF LAWIBy virtue of the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD recognizes to each authoritycontrol

regards to a violation of Article 7 GDPR, for gathering consent in a generic way. To fine the controller €3000 for infringing Article 22(2) LSSI, for installing

Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) Article 12 (4), Article 17 (3), Article 21 (2) and (3), Article 25 (2), Article 58 (2) (b) Section 2 of the Health Care

provisions of article 6 of the LOPDGDD:"Article 6. Treatment based on the consent of the affected party1. In accordance with the provisions of article 4.11 of

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

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

Policy on their website (Article 13 GDPR) and for the absence of a reject button on the second layer of their Cookie Policy (Article 22(2) LSSI). The claimant

processing is based on consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, the consent must meet the requirements of, among others, Article 7 GDPR. The DPA observed deficiencies

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

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

protection as Article 44 of the GDPR, because: i) Google LLC is a provider of electronic communications services within the meaningofSection 4 ofTitle50oftheU

administrative fines provided for by Article 83, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Regulation and Article 166, paragraph 1 of the Code. 4.4. On the publication of the data

complies with the provisions of the GDPR (Article 28.1 GDPR) and concludes an agreement with the processor (Article 28.3 GDPR). 5. To the extent that this decision

infringement of article 32.1 of the GDPR (LCEur 2016, 605), typified in the Article 83.4.a) of the GDPR, a warning sanction, in accordance with article 77 of the

some of the provisions of the GDPR and the "loi informatique et libertés". Regarding, on one hand, the violation of the GDPR, the CNIL reminded the Ministry

and 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

Croatian DPA did not explain which specific corrective powers under Article 58(2) GDPR it used. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision below is

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

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

that, in cases of video surveillance, Article 22.4 LOPDGDD provides that the duty of disclosure in Article 12 GDPR may be fulfilled by placing a sign near

minimisation principle related, as per Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and the lack of transparent information, as per Article 12 GDPR. The decision is the consequence

under a legal obligation to process these data. Article 29 of the Croatian Labour Act and Article 5(4) of the Labour Law Rulebook (Official Gazette, no

been stated nor has it been proven. 3.11. The GDPR also has a jurisdiction regulation. Article 79(2) of the GDPR provides that proceedings against a controller

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

Klarna violate Article 15 of the GDPR? The DPA considered that Klarna failed to process the request within the timeframe required by Article 12(3) and without

controller thus also violated Article 14 GDPR. However, the DPA did not use any of their corrective powers as listed in Article 58(2) GDPR. Share your comments

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

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

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

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

it was not possible to rely on Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Secondly, the DPA recalled that, according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, processing of personal data on

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

personal data (Article 5 GDPR). 9 4. Conclusion 4.1 Having regard to all the above facts, as stated and, based on the powers granted to me by Article 58 of the

purpose.” 1.3 The reasons for the Commissioner’s findings are set out below. 1.4 This case relates to two individuals with the same name and date of birth,

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

according to article 4.1 of the RGPD, is a piece of information personal and their protection, therefore, is object of said Regulation. In Article 4.2 The RGPD

Protection Officer (DPO) under Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the GDPR (see in particular Article 37 GDPR to Article 39 GDPR). One of these audit proceedings concerned

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

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

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

reply. The AKI reminded the defendant of its obligation under Article 13 GDPR and Article 14 GDPR to inform the data subject in a concise, clear, comprehensible

Decision-making 2. On 30 July 2017 [appellant sub 1] requested access to the processing of his personal data as referred to in article 35 of the Wbp. According

subject's right to lodge a complaint as per Article 77 GDPR, in conjunction with Recital 141, and Article 57(1)(f) GDPR. The Board referenced an earlier decision

retention periods which were taken into consideration: On the one hand, under Article 12 of the Act on the Registration of Debt Recovery Operators, unless a longer

fulfilled the duty of information in accordance with GDPR. The Spanish DPA considered that Article 35 GDPR applies in this case and thus a DPIA is necessary

certain data to be delete. It brought a legal action based on Article 17 GDPR and Article 21 GDPR, read in conjunction with the Dutch Data Protection Act (Wet

to the first controller. First, the DPA recalled that according to Article 4(1) GDPR the image of a person constitutes personal data because it reflects

finepublic, as indicated in article 77.1. c) and 2. 4. 5. and 6. of the LOPDDGG: “ 1. Theregime established in this article will be applicable to the treatments

or by a third party. The court used Article 9(2)(f) GDPR to interpret legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as including the establishment, exercise

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

6 6/8the power to impose an administrative fine pursuant to article 83 of the GDPR-article 58.2 i) -, or the power to order the controller or data controllerthat

violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 25(2) GDPR. As a result, and in accordance with Article 58(2)(d) GDPR, the

the principles of lawfulness and fairness of Article 5 GDPR and without a legal basis under Article 6 GDPR. A bank (the controller) organized prize games

this the AZOP held that the controller acted contrary to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR. Moreover, the AZOP reiterated the fact that the pictures

protected (Article 32, Article 24 (1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/679). Has the Chief Surveyor of the country appointed a data protection officer (Article 37 of

Regulation) Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 5, Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph f, Article 17(1)(a), (c) and (d), Article 17(3)(a), Article 21(1) Judgments

enshrined in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The Finish DPA further ordered the controller to bring its processing activities into compliance under Article 58(2)(d)

registered office in G., as an administrator, he can process the meaning of Article. 4 point 2 of Regulation 2016/679, personal data regarding: the name of the

measures to security of processing, in accordance with Article 32 GDPR, in connection with Article 24 GDPR, as the controller did not take into account the risks

subject pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR, for a theft of their personal identity and financial data, because it violated Article 32(1) GDPR which led to a data

subject within 30 days, exempt in cases which it cannot identify the data subject and it shall justify the reasons, as per Article 12(3) GDPR. AEPD stated

security . That Krifa - in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 2, cf. Article 32 (1) (f), cf. 1 and 2 - has demonstrated that

infringement of Article 5.1 b) in conjunction with Article 6.4. AVG, on article 5.1 a) in conjunction with article 6.1. AVG and on article 5.1 c) GDPR has been

certain level of security. Therefore, they did not find a violation of Article 32(1) and decided not to fine the controller. Share your comments here!

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

fined a 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

erased and thus also violates Article 17.1(c) AVG. 3.2. With regard to the infringement of Article 6.1 and Article 21.4 of the AVG 29. In its statement

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

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

paying profiles. II.4. Article 12(1),(2) and (3), Article 17, Article 19, Article 24(1) and Article 25(1) AVG 63. Article 12 (1) GDPR stipulates that the

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.

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

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

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

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

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

assessments. 4.2.1. Exemption under Article 15 (1) of the Data Protection Regulation. 4 The right to access is limited, among other things. Article 15 (1) of

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

complainant had a right to object to processing for marketing purposes under Article 21 GDPR. Despite no further contact being made the company, the AEPD still fined

accordance with Article 33 GDPR to the Belgian DPA. Nonetheless, there were suspicions that the controller did not comply with Article 32 GDPR. Especially

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

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:

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

information. Article 7 of said act, however, states that public figures cannot expect the same level of protection as other citizens. Article 8 also states

S.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 Mr. D.D.D

violation of the general right of personality under Article 1.1, Article 2.1 of the Basic Law (Article 7, Article 8 of the Basic Law) was to be taken into account

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

observations. Firstly, the right to be forgotten can be found in Article 17 GDPR and Article 93 of the LOPDGDD, the Spanish data protection law. It establishes

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

person under article 4.1 of the RGPD is personal data and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. Article 4.2 of the GDPR defines the

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

the data could be processed under the legitimate interest basis (ARTICLE 6(1)(f) GDPR). The tribunal weighted the different interests at stake and decided

Page 4 4 (7) On November 8, 2015, I filed a complaint with the Data Protection Inspectorate (AKI) and demanded that the AKI rapidly implement Article 58

controllers and processors (Article 4(7) and (8) of the GDPR) as well as the certification body in the case of Article 83(4b) of the GDPR and the supervisory authority

number). However, the DPA concluded that the controller did not violate Article 15(2) GDPR by asking for more information to identify the data subject when the

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

of identified personal data as defined in Article 4(1) and (2) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). 1 Hof van beroep Brussel, sectie Marktenhof

meaning of Article 6.4 Old Law. 2 DSGVO, which enables additional national deviations from the purpose, the compatibility test under Article 6.4, old version

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

security of processing (Article 32 GDPR), the transparency principle (Article 13 GDPR) and its information duties related to cookies (Article 22(2) of the Spanish

the general rule of Article 15 (1) (a), c) and d) of the GDPR by not giving substantive, specific answers to the request under Article 15 and by sharing

the meaning of Article 30 Paragraph 1 GDPR by not keeping such a processing register in the form specified in Article 30 Paragraph 3 GDPR (in writing or

on the proposal of the MTB, ________________________________________ Page 4 4 (7) by replacing the word "police" with the word "investigative body". The

there is no infringement of Article 5 (1) (a) and (2), Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 24 GDPR 2. there is no infringement of Article 5 of the Act of 21 March

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

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

purpose constituted a breach of Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. Secondly, the CNIL indicated that the controller breached Article 13 GDPR by failing to include the right

57(1)(a) and Article 58(2)(b) in connection with Article 5(1)(f), Article 24(1), Article 25(1), Article 32(1) and (2) of 2 of Regulation EU 2016/679 of the European

controller within the meaning of Article 4(7) of the AVG. 3.4 Violation regarding the reporting of a violation 3.4.1 Introduction Article 33(1) of the AVG stipulates

the processing is consent in accordance with Article 6 Paragraph 1 Letter a GDPR. According to point 4.4.6. According to the data protection declaration

is you, I remind you not in vain, (...)". SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, Protection of Personal Data and

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

definition of the concept of consent in the data protection regulation article 4, No. 11. Article 4 of the Data Protection Regulation, no. 11 states that consent

accordance with Article 132, Article 168 23 of the Law on Administrative Responsibility first part, Article 172 and Article 173, first part, paragraph 4, Article

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

in the Article 83.4 of the GDPR. - Has violated the provisions of Article 37 of the RGPD, an offense classified in the Article 83.4 of the GDPR. SECOND:

restaurant owner lawful in line of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR? The Spanish DPA concluded that there has been a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR because the uploading of

Spanish city council for infringing Article 30 GDPR by not maintaining a record of its processing activities, and Article 31 of the Spanish Data Protection

compatibility of § 30 DSG with Article 83 GDPR, to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. This case law has a wide-ranging impact on GDPR-fines in

request under Article 15 and with the one month deadline under Article 12(3). Was Google Ireland Ltd in breach of its obligations under GDPR Article 15(1) and

proceedings Article 77 (1) and Article 22 (b) of the General Data Protection Regulation. may be submitted in the case provided for in Under Article 77 (1) of

entrepreneur. The DPA found that the controller violated Article 31 GDPR and Article 58(1)(e) GDPR and issued a warning to the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur

held that the controller violated Article 12(1) GDPR, Article 12(2) GDPR, Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 15(3) GDPR. The controller had deleted the data

did not acknowledge that with the introduction of Title 8.4 in the Awb on the basis of Article 8:4, paragraph 1, opening words and under f of the Awb, the

under Article 83 GDPR and the question of the compatibility of § 30 Datenschutzgesetz (Austrian Data Protection Act - DSG) with Article 83 GDPR to the

with Article 5 (1) (f) and Article 32 (1) and (2) of the Data Protection Ordinance, Chapter 4 § 2 and ch. 6 § 7 the Patient Data Act and Chapter 4 2 § HSLF-FS

for the alleged violation of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR and Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR. FIFTH: Notified of the aforementioned

constitutes sensitive data within the meaning of Article 9 GDPR. The DPA alluded to Article 9(1) GDPR which prohibits the processing of these special categories

to Article 58 Paragraph 2 Letter i and Article 83 Paragraph 1 to 6 GDPR Article 58 Paragraph 2 Litera i and Article 83 Paragraph One , up to 6 GDPR are

violations of Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR and of Article 32 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.4 of the GDPR. In order

submitted its observations, which, in accordance with Article 54(1)(b), (3) and (4), (4) and (4), (5) and (5), (5) and (5), (5) and (5), (5) and (6). 2

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

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

service in the terms required by article 22.2.”, and may be sanctioned with a fine of up to €30,000, in accordance with article 39 of the aforementioned LSSI

Court found that customers’ order data is health data and fall within Article 9(1) GDPR. Amazon does not collect health data stricto sensu but it can draw

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

the combined provisions of article 32, paragraph 1, subparagraphs b) and d) and article 83, paragraph 4, al.a), of the GDPR, with a fine of € 0.00 to €

contravene Articles 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR? The AEPD found that GRUP BC S.L violated Article 13(1), 6(1)(a) and 8 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share blogs

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

sentence 2 GDPR).3.1.4.1. According to Article 77, paragraph one, GDPR, every data subject within the meaning of Article 4, number one, GDPR in Austria

referred to in Article 2.3.2 or by virtue of Article 2.3.8, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4 or 5.2.5 and necessary for the implementation of Article 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.3

EDREAMS, S.L. was ordered for a violation of the Article 44 of the GDPR, typified in Article 83.5 of the GDPR, adapt the activity of data processing carried

personal data. Moreover, pursuant to Article 58(1) GDPR, the Italian DPA asked the controller to communicate by 30 April 2023 the initiatives it took to

copy under Article 15(3) GDPR, as interpreted by the CJEU in case C-487/21, is part of the right to access of data subjects under Article 15 GDPR, which is

against the defendant for the alleged infringement of Article 6.1(a) of the RGPD, as defined in Article 83.4 of the RGPD. FOURTH: Upon notification of the above-mentioned

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

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

violation of Article 6 GDPR, nor of Article 8 GDPR. There was also no violation of Article 9 GDPR, since the exception for explicit consent from Article 9(2)(a)

Point 6 of Article 3 Act no. 90/2018 and item 7 of Article 4. of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, cf. and the first and second paragraphs. Article 4 Epidemiology

result is processed in accordance with Article 4, Paragraph 1, Clause 5 of the 16th BayIfSMV for the purposes of Article 4, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 and 2 of the

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

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

in national law. By recalling the fundamental principles of the GDPR mentioned in Article 5, namely the limitation of purpose and the minimization of data

of 15/06/2016, sp. stamp 30 Cdo 3598/2014, dated 15 June 2016, file no. stamp 30 Cdo 5027/2014, or from 28/05/2018, sp. stamp 30 Cdo 4231/2016) that the

derogant rule, based on the interpretation of Article 95 GDPR in the line of the Rec (173) GDPR and Article 1(2) and 15a of the ePrivacy Directive. The CNIL

an article about the alleged harassment, unnecessary and illegal detention of a Turkish Cypriot woman who was on the Police Alert-List. The article revealed

decision. Article 4: The State will pay the sum of 3,000 euros to Mr. A ...- C ... under article L. 761-1 of the code of administrative justice. Article 5: this

minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, and contrary to the obligation to obtain the freely given consent of the data subject under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, when refusal

personal data and to restrict processing in accordance with Article 45 DSG and Article 16 GDPR and any other conceivable legal basis. The incorrect data

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

fairness (Article 5(1)(a) GDPR). Thus by not providing sufficient information, the controller breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Additionally

the meaning of Article 9 of the GDPR must indeed be based on Article 9.2 of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 6.1 of the GDPR. 24 This has been

non-compliance with the requirements of Article 5.1.c) of the GDPR and non-compliance with the requirements of article 5.1.e) of the GDPR. 10. On February 28, 2020,

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

Council; 4. [Article 5 GDPR#1f|Article 5(1)(f)]] in conjunction with Article 5(2), i.e. the principles of integrity and confidentiality, and Article 32 GDPR

time, which is a violation of the GDPR. As to the claim for damages, the CoS notes that though Article 82(1) of the GDPR states that full compensation for

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

consequently dismissed by Uber by solely algorithmic means in the sense of Article 22 GDPR. The Uber drivers were represented by the App Drivers & Couriers Union

required by Article 15(1)(a)-(h) and 15(2) GDPR via an online function. When Spotify provides a copy of personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR it includes

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

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

the Law: "Article 36. Taxpayers 1. They are taxpayers, as taxpayers, natural or legal persons, and the entities referred to in article 35.4 of Law 58/2003

the GDPR against the controller, the DPA issued a fine of €12.100 in accordance with Article 83(4) GDPR, Article 83(5) GDPR and Article 83(6) GDPR. Both

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

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

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

Therefore, the DPA confirmed a breach of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, Article 7 GDPR and of Article 130 of the Italian Privacy Code for having

not necessarily meet the requirements of Article 32 GDPR. To what extent are the provisions in Article 32 GDPR obligatory and thus, not subject to the preferences

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

European Parliament and of the Council of May 30, 2018 amending AMLD4 entered into force (AMLD5). The amended article 30 paragraph 5 stipulates that information

consequence, Vodaphone violated Article 5(1)(f) GDPR, as interpreted in the light of the last sentence of the recital 39 GDPR. Share your comments here! Share

051,000, a decrease of 5.4% compared to 2021. THOUGHT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW 1. According to Article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR, personal data "shall be processed

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

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

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

of State in the Netherlands (RvS) held that a complainant cannot use Article 15 GDPR to find out who reported to the municipality that he may not be entitled

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

to demonstrate compliance (“accountability”).” 2.4. Art. 6 GDPR reads:2.4. Article 6, GDPR reads: Article 6 lawfulness of processing (1) The processing is

processing, in violation of Article 32 GDPR, and failed to undertake a data protection impact assessment, in violation of Article 35. For the above reasons

for the purposes of Articles 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d) GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, and Article 85 GDPR when read in line with domestic legislation. This was decided

out its obligations related to the security of data processing under Article 32 GDPR. Additionally, the Garante held that Hostinger, the third party sub-contracted

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

used and otherwise processed as credit data. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 4 of the Bankruptcy Act (120/2004), bankruptcy begins when a debtor is declared

request from Article 17(3)(e) to Article 6(4) GDPR without properly documenting or demonstrating how purpose compatibility criteria in GDPR are met. The

with the principles of data minimisation (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and of storage limitation (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR). Share your comments here! Share blogs or

term "pain and suffering" is not used in Art. 82 GDPR or in the other norms of the GDPR. Art. 82 (1) GDPR only standardizes a “claim for damages” for every

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

thus personal data as referred to in article 4, preambles under 1, of the AVG. 2/20 Date Unidentified February 4, 2021 [confidential] From the letter from

controller under Article 83 GDPR due to the controller’s violations of Article 5(1) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR. Share your comments

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

them to modify their cookie banner in order to comply with Article 4(11), 6(1)(a) and 7 GDPR. On 19 July 2023, a data subject lodged a complaint through

considering that the controller violated Article 5 GDPR, Article 9 GDPR and Article 32 GDPR, as well as Article 2-septies(8) of the Italian Privacy Code

reliability, behavior, location or movements of said natural person "(see Article 4, no. 4) as well as what is specified in this regard by Recital 71 on the basis

the necessary checks in accordance with Article 16 of the Spanish Citizen Safety Law (Ley Orgánica 4/2015, de 30 de marzo, de protección de la seguridad

the sense of Article 4, headings under 12, of the GDPR. What should be clear is that a breach is some type of security incident Article 4, headings under

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

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

(definition) Article 4.1: Data subject (definition) Article 4.2: Processing (definition) Article 4.3: Restriction of processing (definition) Article 4.4 : Profiling

Privacy Ordinance Article 4 no. 2. For this processing of personal data, the mission assembly is responsible for processing. Article 6 (1) of the Privacy

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

personali” and of Article 9 GDPR as well as the principles of lawfulness, integrity and confidentiality of the processing as per Article 5 GDPR. In fact, according

obligation in accordance with Article 5.1a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR has not been fulfilled. 23. In accordance with Article 95, § 2, 3° of the WOG

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 25, 32, 35 and 36 of the GDPR, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 27 and 28 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 28

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

the basis of consent by the data subject under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. Hence, pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the court further examined whether processing

increase or decrease. 4.4 Conclusion The AP sets the total fine at €525,000. 4For the justification, see paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. 18/19,Date Unidentified

(Articles 15 and 17 GDPR). The DPA held that the controller breached Articles 12(3) GDPR, Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 17(1) GDPR by not responding to

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

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

procedure under Article 58(2) GDPR. The DPA also invited the controller to provide its defence in writing. The Italian DPA noted that Article 37(7) GDPR not only

the existence of a legal or legitimate interest. According to Article 15(1) of the GDPR, the data subject had the right to request confirmation from the

norm therefore by article 19 of the LOPD as business data. We consider relevant the legal basis by which, according to the article Article 65 of the LOPD

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

with Section 30 (4) No. 1 in conjunction with Section 2 No. 1a) AO in conjunction with Section 7 KiStG and in accordance with Article 18 (4) of the Berlin

infringed Article 12(3) GDPR, Article 12(4) GDPR and Article 17(1) GDPR and ordered the controller to deal with the data subject's request within 30 days after

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

considered personal data under Article 4(1) GDPR and the publishing of such data is considered to be processing under Article 4(2) GDPR. Secondly, the APD noted

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

in relation to proceedings under Article 78(1) of the GDPR. The Court notes that Article 58(4) and Article 78 of the GDPR give expression to the right to

constitutes processing within the meaning of Article 4.2. of the GDPR. 8. Pursuant to Article 5.1.b) of the GDPR, all processing must pursue a purpose determined

Italian DPA reprimanded a processor for having breached Article 5(1)(f) GDPR and Article 32 GDPR since, following a software update, the platform of a healthcare

investigation relates to Article 38.1 of the GDPR so that the explanations of the agent of the controlled under Article 37.2 of the GDPR are not relevant in

Guarantor for the protection of personal data, approved by resolution no. 98 of 4/4/2019, published in the Official Gazette n. 106 of 8/5/2019 and in www.gpdp

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

breach of article 6 of the GDPR as well as article 12.3-4 of the GDPR, for reasons set out above ( Title II.1.2, points 12-13 and Title II.1.4, points 23-25)

constituted health data under Article 9(1) and Article 4(15) GDPR but the transfer was nevertheless admissible pursuant to Article 9 GDPR, as the strict requirements

violation of article 15 of the RGPD. V Classification of the violation of article 15 of the GDPR If confirmed, the aforementioned violation of article 15 of the

complaint with Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. However, Article 58(2)(b) GDPR contains the authority of the DPA to reprimand a controller. Article 58(2)(c) GDPR contains

violation of Article 5 (1) (a) and (2) GDPR, Article 6 (1) GDPR and Article 24 (1) of the GDPR; and - no violation of Article 12 (1) GDPR, Article 13 (1) and

provided for in Article 18 GDPR. As explained by the Court, Article 18(1) GDPR, in particular in paragraph (d), is linked to Article 21(1) GDPR, which guarantees

such processing was falling under the household exemption (Article 2(2)(c) GDPR), and that the GDPR therefore did not apply. For this reason, the Icelandic

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

to the GDPR in execution of article 2.1. of the GDPR. II.2. Regarding compliance with Article 6 of the GDPR (lawfulness) 24. Pursuant to Article 6 of the

the meaning of Article 100 of the WOG. 38. The Disputes Chamber has thus decided, on the basis of Article 58.2.a) GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 4° of the WOG

2 a) Basic information about Article 15 GDPRa) Basic information about Article 15 GDPR Pursuant to Article 15 Para. 1 GDPR, the data subject has the right

"controllers" within the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR. On the award of damages, the Court pointed out that, under Article 82 GDPR, any assessment of harm must

directly from Article 77 GDPR. However, the GDPR does not contain any specifications regarding the deadlines for asserting a claim under Article 77 GDPR. The exercise

processing is based on Article 6(1)(e) of the GDPR. This data processing also complies with the due care requirements set by the GDPR. There is therefore

erasure. The DPA held that the controller breached Articles 12(3) GDPR, 12(4) GDPR and 17(1) GDPR because it did not respond in time to the erasure request and

pecuniary damages under Article 1, in conjunction with Article 2(1) Grundgesetz or for non-pecuniary damages under Article 82 GDPR because of the loss of

he assessment: violation of Article 57.4 AVG (third plea in law from X). X submits that the decision violates Article 57.4 of the AVG where this provision

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

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

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

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

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

first paragraph of Article 91 of ZVOP 1 and when applying the second paragraph of Article 26 of ZP 1, the first paragraph of Article 21 of ZP 1 and the

the sense of Article 4(2) GDPR and confirmed that Alava Water Consortium would therefore have to observe the principles of Article 5 GDPR and have a valid

data for these purposes under Article 21(2) GDPR. Additionally, the data subject filed an access request under Article 15 GDPR. The data subject did not receive

according to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. As for the lawfulness, the ICO considers that there is a legitimate interest according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However

processing as per Article 5(1)(b), nor legal grounds as per Article 6. In sum, the DPA found that NIF had breached Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (f), Article 6, and Article

13, 14 GDPR), also the defendant clearly and in ease language pointed to the default settings, so no breach of Article 25 GDPR or Article 32 GDPR either

appeared on letfinans.dk, does not meet the requirements of Article 4(11) and Article 7 GDPR for a valid consent. The Danish DPA underlined that Leadwise’s

contravening Article 6 GDPR and the principle of data minimization outlined in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. The alleged justifications under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article

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

dati personali - GDPD) found that the controller had violated Article 5 and Article 9 GDPR; it fined the controller €40,000, balancing, among other things

DSG, in compliance with Article 8(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The DSB thus rejected

and (1)(e) of Article 6 GDPR. The violation of Article 2-ter of the Code is a direct consequence of the violation of Articles 5 and 6 GDPR. Finally, the

principles of article 5 par. 1 GDPR. It's not a coincidence that the GDPR includes accountability (already mentioned above article 5 par. 2 GDPR) in the regulation

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

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

offer services to data subjects in the EU (Article 3(2)(a) GDPR). The DPA concluded that Article 3(2)(b) GDPR was also not applicable. The DPA mentioned

outside the material scope of the GDPR. Also, with regards to the definition of personal data from Article 4(1) GDPR, the DPA did not reach a firm conclusion

information listed in article 13.1 and 13.2. of the GDPR unless and insofar as the data subject has already knowledge (Article 13.4. of the GDPR). This information

basis of article 62, § 1 2 of the WOG transferred to the Disputes Chamber. 4. In accordance with Article 95, § 2, 3° of the WOG as well as Article 47 of the

controller violated Article 12(3) GDPR, 12(4) GDPR and Article 17(1) GDPR and ordered it to comply with the erasure request within a timeframe of 30 days from the

Recital 32 and Article 4(11) GDPR. Information relating to the purposes of processing must also be easily accessible pursuant to Article 12(1) GDPR, in the broader

intention of the GDPR and therefore a restrictive interpretation of Article 15 (1) GDPR is required. cc. Even if Article 15 (1) GDPR were to be interpreted

a breach of Article 6(1) GDPR and Article 13(1)(c) GDPR. The DPA found that the controller could not seek to rely on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR as a legal basis

of these data (hereinafter, GDPR); and in article 47 of the LOPDGDD. SECOND: In accordance with the provisions of article 55 of the RGPD, the Agency Spanish

the data subject concerned but only as a “third party” as defined in Article 4(10) GDPR. Can an insolvency administrator exercise the right to access on behalf

violation the Article 5(1)(a) GDPR principle of lawfulness, fairness, and transparency, and the transparency obligations in Article 13 GDPR. Furthermore

authorisation from the data subject. This breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 13 GDPR, and Article 157 of the Italian Privacy Code. GFB One s

Protection Regulation) Article 5, paragraph 1, subparagraph c, Article 25, Article 58, paragraph 2, subparagraph d, and Article 87, Section 29, subsection

2018, on Art. 4 GDPR marginal 10; Eßer in: Auernhammer, GDPR - BDSG, 6th edition 2018, on Art. 4 GDPR marginal 32; Gola, DS-GVO, 2017, on Art. 4 marginal 29)

controller within the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR. The DPA analysed the requirements under Article 4(7) GDPR and Article 5(2) GDPR, together with the EDPB guidelines

B28905784, for an infringement of the article 5.1.d) of the GDPR, in accordance with article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, with a fine of 10,000 euros (ten honey

data within the meaning of Article 4(1) GDPR? Does a disclosure of personal data under the FOIA fall under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR? The ICO first held, that

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

under Article 36 GDPR) regarding the compliance of the envisaged processing with the GDPR. According to the Commission, the legal basis was Article 6(1)(e)

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

the GDPR, a controller may first assess, in view of the system and the text of that Article, whether the exception in Article 17(3)(e) of the GDPR applies

safety for the processing of personal data under Article 32 GDPR, Article 24, Article 5(1)(f) and Article 5(2), as well as § 26(1) of the Personal Data Act

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

Therefore, the DPA held that the controller violated Article 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(a)(f) GDPR and imposed a fine of €5,000. The motivation stated that

DPA found that the controller violated the following GDPR provisions: Articles 5(1), 6(1) and 7 GDPR for acquiring personal data from a third party for marketing

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

with the provisions of article 85 of the LPACAP. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to B.B.B.. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD,

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

decided to publish it. The DPA considered both Article 137 of the Italian Data Protection Code and Article 9 GDPR and recalled that sensitive data can be processed

self-image or reputation of a person (Becker in: Plath, GDPR/BDSG, 3rd edition 2018, Article 82 GDPR, para. 4c). In particular, the reference to "full and effective

defendant is Article 159(2)(4) of the Polish Telecommunications Law, in conjunction with Article 30, Article 32(2), Article 42(1) and Article 45(1) of the

out a breach of Article 32 GDPR since the concerned data, a phone number used by a company, was not "personal" under Article 4(1) GDPR. On 17 January 2023

meaning of Article 5(3) and Article 2(f) of Directive 2002/58/EC, as amended by Article 2(5) of Directive 2009/136/EC, in conjunction with Article 2(h) of

with a private company without comply with the Article 28 GDPR, Article 5 (1)(a) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR. The municipality of Modica has concluded an agreement

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

12/21/2022 standard B-VG Art133 Para.4 DSG §1 GDPR Art16 GDPR Art17 GDPR Art18 GDPR Art21 GDPR Art4 GDPR Art5 GDPR Art6 Para.1 litf Trade Regulations 1994

6(1)(a) GDPR. The Italian DPA ordered the controller to erase personal data and stop the processing pursuant to Article 58(2)(d) and (f) GDPR. The DPA

patients with HIV infections can access dental services. Meanwhile, Article 5 GDPR provides that personal data must be processed in a lawful and transparent

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

breached Article 6(1)(e) GDPR and ordered all 53 municipalities to bring their processing in line with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6(1) GDPR, by ensuring

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

June 2023. The Belgian DPA found a violation of Article 21(2) GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR. Firstly, Article 21(2) establishes the right for a data subject

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

notion of personal data as defined in Article 4.1) GDPR, which are processed within the meaning of Article 2. 1 GDPR. Not just any whole or in part automated

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

according to article 4.1 of the GDPR, are a Personal data and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation. In the article 4.2 of the GDPR defines

further data dissemination on the controller for violating Article 5 GDPR and Article 12 GDPR. The case involves a complaint filed against Edizioni Proposta

and transparency, as outlined in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. In the exercise of its authority under Article 58(2)(f) GDPR, the DPA imposed a ban on the processing

powers granted by Article 58(2) GDPR, Article 166 Codice in materia di protezione dei dati personali, and in line with Article 83(5) GDPR, it imposed a €4000

fine on the controller for violating Article 9(1) and (2) GDPR. The controller claimed to be covered by the Article 9(2)(e) exception, but the DPA rejected

accordance with Article 6(2) GDPR and Article 6(3) GDPR for adaptation to the application of Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The court stressed

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

transparency from Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. Therefore, the controller violated the principle of accountability provided by Article 5(2) and 24 GDPR for the failure

out in Article 33(1) of the GDPR, meaning that the company had breached this provision. Consequently the DPA imposed an administrative fine of 30 000 EUR

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

processing of the personal data (Article 5(1) GDPR). The controller did not demonstrate a contractual relationship (Article 6(1)(b)) with the lawyers concerned

concerned initially presented Article 17 (1) (a) GDPR and Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR in more detail, as well as Article 5 (1) (b) GDPR. She also referred to her

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

could constitute a violation of Article 5.1.a and Article 6.1 of the GDPR. - pursuant to Article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and Article 95, §1, 5° of the LCA, to order

constituting a breach of Article 12(2) GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR, as well as Article 15 GDPR, Article 17 GDPR and Article 21(2) GDPR. Thus, the calls carried

ordered it to do so. The data subject exercised its right to access under Article 15 GDPR to obtain a copy of the sales call recording with a telemarketing company

response to their request to exercise their rights under Article 15, Article 17 and Article 21 GDPR. Therefore, the data subject lodged a complaint with the

Italian DPA concluded that the controller breached Article 5 GDPR, Article 6 GDPR and Article 9 GDPR and Articles 2-ter as well as 2-septies (8) of the

answer within one month to the access request (Article 12(3) GDPR) nor any extension under Article 12(4) GDPR had ever been communicated. The DPA deemed the

privacy, as it identifies the car and not the person (...)." Pursuant to Article 4(1) GDPR, personal data refers to information about natural persons, not vehicles

implementation of provisions of the “e-Privacy Directive”) and article 6.1.a. GDPR. 3In accordance with Article 61 of the WOG, the Disputes Chamber hereby informs

personal data after multiple requests, in violation of Articles 12 and 17 GDPR. A data subject filed a complaint with the Italian DPA (Garante per la Protezione

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

processing within the meaning of Article 6.4 GDPR. She therefore proposes a possible violation of Article 5.1.b) GDPR. 18. Finally, the Disputes Chamber

provided for in article 83.5.a), in relation to article 5.1.f); and, another infringement provided for in Article 83.4.a), in relation to Article 35; all of

results in the company being a processor in accordance with Article 4(8) GDPR and Article 28 GDPR. Moreover, the Court notes that the controller processed

of the GDPR, the processing of the applicant's personal data by the bank took place on the basis of Article 6 (1)(b) GDPR and Article 6 (1)(c) GDPR. The

obligations under Articles 4(1)(a) and 14 (principle of transparency), Article 4(2) (accountability principle), and Article 15 (data subject’s right to

meaning of Article 15(1) of the AVG. Pursuant to Article 34 of the AVG Implementation Act, the written decision on a request pursuant to Article 15 of the

to comply with the request (Article 12(3) GDPR) or not (Article 12(4) GDPR). Without addressing a potential breach of the GDPR, the DPA ordered the controller

established by Article 83 of the GDPR. As a result, it referred the decision to the CJEU and asked two questions: 1) Does Article 83(4) to (6) GDPR incorporate

concluded a prima facie breach of Article 15 GDPR and Article 17 GDPR in combination with Article 12(3) GDPR and Article 12(4) GDPR, because the controller did

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

grounds., - 3 - Outfittery GmbH has thus violated Article 17(1), Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) GDPR. III. As a result, we have decided not to take any

collected for other purposes which would be incompatible with Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(4) GDPR. The CE dismissed that claimed by recalling that both

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

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

Italian Dpa fined, under articles 19 and 20 d.lgs. 30 giugno 2003 n. 196 (before the implementation of GDPR), the "Ministero degli Interni" for having communicated

invitation to comply, breaching Article 12 GDPR, Article 15 GDPR, Article 16 GDPR, Article 17 GDPR and Article 18 GDPR. Thus, due to the aformentioned

(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

grounds for processing under Article 6(1) GDPR. Finally, the NAIH held that the controller was in breach of Article 12(2) GDPR for mis-registering the data

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

transparency under Article 12(1) GDPR and Article 14 GDPR, as the controller had failed to fulfill the informational obligations under Article 14 GDPR. The municipality

violation of Article 6 GDPR and Article 5(1)(a) GDPR (lawfulness) as it lacked a legal basis for processing. The Municipality sought to rely on Article 6(1)(e)

to process the data under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR? Did the bank have a lawful basis to process the data under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR? The Icelandic DPA decided

common persons method, 4.4.2. propensity score matching method, 4.4.3. method omens of common questions (pseudo anchor method), 4.4.4. Angoff weighting method

erasure pursuant to Article 17(1) GDPR were not fulfilled. First, the processing was not unlawful pursuant to Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. As the processing was

the principles of purpose limitation under Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, the controller must change the angles of

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

transmission as a precautionary measure under Article 21 GDPR and requested a restriction of processing under Article 18 GDPR. Additionally, the data subject complained

issued, the request must be checked against Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR in conjunction with Article 6 (4) GDPR. This means that the interests of [claimant under

processing to be unlawful. The processing violated Article 7(2) GDPR, Article 7(4) GDPR and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The controller was fined 2,000,000 HUF (approx

amended: Article 3,, Article 4, number 11,, Article 7,, Article 51, paragraph one,, Article 12, paragraph 3,, Article 17,, Article 19,, Article 57, paragraph

violation of the GDPR, in particular Articles 12 and 15. Pursuant to its powers under Article 58(2)(i) GDPR, and in accordance with Article 83 GDPR, they imposed

in accordance with the definition adopted in the GDPR, contained in its art. 4 points 7 of the GDPR, "controller" means a natural or legal person, public

obligations related to the processing operations pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 14(5)(b) GDPR. In that case, the DPA recommended that the information

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

amended; Art. 4 nos. 1 and 2, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. c, Article 6 paragraph 1, Article 51 paragraph 1, Article 57 paragraph 1 letter f and Article 77 paragraph

the Austrian DPA pursuant to Article 55(1) GDPR. However, the DPA further considered the exception of Article 55(2) GDPR which states that local DPA's

(per Article 4(11) GDPR), as individuals had only agreed to those websites' privacy policies. The ICO found that "between 11 January 2019 and 30 September

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

legal basis for their processing in article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However, according to article 17(1)(c) and article 21(1) GDPR, upon receiving an erasure request

the GDPR, 16 - Article 5 (2) of the GDPR, - Article 7 (1) of the GDPR, - Paragraphs (1) – (4) of Article 12 of the GDPR and - Article 15 (1) and Article

personal data under Article 15(3) of the GDPR from Zilveren Kruis, Stichting Philadelphia Zorg, Stichting Cordaan and another party. On 30 August 2018 and

applicant in the sense of the legal basis of Article 6 (1) (f) GDPR.47The applicant cannot refer to Article 13 (4) GDPR in this regard. According to this, it

violated the right to be forgotten under Article 17. While the DPA did not charge the controller under Article 12(4) GDPR, they reminded the controller that

obtain a conclusive answer or access as required by Article 15(1) GDPR. Moreover, Article 15(3) GDPR provides that the controller must provide a copy of

month as per Article 12(3) GDPR. Second, the Council of State held that the right to rectification of personal data pursuant to Article 16 GDPR only applies

of a suitable legal prerequisite (Article 9 of the Regulation and Article 84 of the Code in conjunction with Article 22, paragraph 11, Legislative Decree

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

set out by Article 12(4) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller to comply with the access request pursuant Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and Article 95(1)(5) LCA

of article 4.15 of the GDPR. 18. The Litigation Chamber recalls in this regard that the GDPR has opted for a broad definition health data. Article 4.15

Chamber st 2 Litigation under article 62, § 1 of the LCA. 10. Pursuant to article 95 § 2, 3° of the LCA as well as article 47 of the order regulations internal

data controller) to exercise her rights provided for from Article 15 GDPR to Article 22 GDPR but did not receive feedback. On 2 March 2023, the Italian

DPA came to a settlement agreement with the controller pursuant of Article 100(1)(4), WOG (Law establishing the data protection authority). According to

conferred by article 58.1 of the RGPD and article 67 of the LOPDGDD. " The expiration of the previous actions was already included in article 122.4 of the Royal

Therefore, the Court held that, with reference to Article 12(1), (2), (3) and (4), and Article 15 GDPR, the data subject's right to access must be fulfilled

a valuation; 107.6 million “batch” emails sent to customers between 30 days and 4 years since their last valuation; and 7.8 million “good news” emails

definition of "personal data" in Article 4(1) GDPR. The DPA reminded the controller that, as defined in Recital 26 GDPR, pseudonymisation is a mere technical

prohibition to process sensitive data (Article 2-septies (8) of the Code and Article 9(4) GDPR). Pursuant to Article 83(3) GDPR, the DPA considered several aggravating

contract (article 17.1 of the GDPR), within 30 days of notification of the this decision; - under article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and article 95, §1, 4° of the

failure to respond to an erasure request pursuant to Article 12 GDPR in relation to Article 17 GDPR. On September 17 2020 a data subject resigned as a voluntary

data protection and breached the GDPR (article 5(1)(a) and (c) and 6 GDPR) as well as the Legislative Decree no. 196 of 30 June 2003 on the "Personal Data

cannot obtain the deletion of the data referred to in Article 17 GDPR, because Article 17 (3) (b) GDPR precludes this. By publishing the decision, the District

information as laid down under Article 13 GDPR (the data subject invoked Article 13 GDPR but apparently meant Article 15 GDPR, see comment below). The controller

infringement of Article 5.1.b), c) and e) GDPR and Article 5.1.a) j° Article 6.1 GDPR; - on the basis of Article 58.2.c) of the GDPR and Article 95, § 1, 5°

required by Article 13 GDPR. As a result, the processing activity carried out through the use of the video surveillance system violated Article 5(1)(a) and

judicial remedy (Article 12(4) GDPR). Accordingly, as they failed to respond in such a way, the authority had infringed Articles 12 and 15 GDPR. With regard

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

constitute personal data. 3.4 The processing constitutes profiling 3.4.1 Applicable regulations Profiling is defined in Article 4.4 of the Data Protection Regulation

aforementioned principles of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR but also a breach of the principle of integrity and confidentiality under Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. Moreover, there had

breach of Article 80(3) ZVOP-2 The DPA, therefore, reprimanded the controller for violations of Article 76(4) ZVOP-2, Article 78(1) ZVOP-2 and Article 80(3)

and teachers. As per Article 8 Section 4 of the Act on Data Protection and the Processing of Personal Data and Article 5(1)(d) GDPR, it is the controller's

ordered them to pay a court fee of €30. Article 96(1)(1) ZVOP 2 (infringements of the provisions of Article 83(4) GDPR) (1) A fine of between EUR 100 and

crawlers to identify GDPR violations with the sole aim of claiming non-material damages rules out compensation under Article 82 GDPR. The controller embedded

has been an infringement against it Articles 12.3 and 12.4 GDPR, as well as Article 17.1 GDPR. 4 8. Based on the above analysis, it could be concluded that

appropriate technical and organisational measures, as required by Article 32(1) GDPR, to ensure the proper administration of welfare. In summer 2021, the

controller. On 30 May 2023, the Garante notified the controller of the alleged violations and that it was initiating the procedure pursuant to Article 166(5) of

violation of Article 24 GDPR. Moreover, the DPA stressed that controllers must be able to demonstrate that they obtained consent, pursuant to Article 7(1) GDPR

place per Article 46(2) GDPR. For these violations, the DPA reprimanded the controller and ordered it to comply with the GDPR (specifically Article 46 GDPR)

according to Article 19 GDPR. The DPA held that the controllers could have breached Article 21(2) GDPR, Article 21(3) GDPR and Article 17(1)(c) GDPR in combination

to Article 88 GDPR, which holds that it is permissible for national laws to provide a greater standard of protection than already given by the GDPR with

classified content (index) of the Google search engine. 4. Because according to Article 17 para. 1 of the GDPR, "the data subject has the right to request from

controller to be in violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Article 6 GDPR, Article 9 GDPR, Article 12 GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and started a procedure to adopt

after the end of employment constituted a breach of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. At that time, the controller lacked an appropriate legal

The claimant has submitted a request on the basis of Article 58 of the AVG . Pursuant to this article, the defendant may - prior to taking enforcement action

information and granting it access to personal data in accordance with Article 58 (1)(a) and (e) GDPR. The data subject filed a complaint with the Polish DPA, claiming

controller violated Article 12(3) GDPR because it didn’t provide access within the time limit in this provision. It also violated Article 12(4) GDPR because it

provided to the interested parties based on Article 13 GDPR and to non-contactable persons based on Article 14 GDPR. The information notice includes the right

exemptions from the applicability of the GDPR for journalistic activity, based on Article 85(2) GDPR. According to Article 2(1) of the Polish Data Protection

have been processed, in that case on the basis of Article 15 GDPR in consistency with Article 12 GDPR. 4.2. When assessing [the applicant's] request, it

data processing [Article 83 (2) (d) GDPR]; the personal data collected are also special categories of personal data [Article 83 GDPR. Article 2 (2) (g)]; -

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

ISWEB violated Article 28(2) GDPR and Article 28(4) GDPR as a processor on behalf of the hospitals and Article 28(1) GDPR and Article 28(3) GDPR as controller

for the purposes of Article 26 GDPR. It held that their cookie practices were (i) in violation of Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, and (ii) Article 11.7a of the Dutch

The personal data (first and last name) was deemed health data under Article 4(15) as the data subjects name was combined with the name of their healthcare

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

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

Source: standards: Article 17(1) TEU 2016/679, Article 17(1)(a) TEU 2016/679, Article 17(1)(d) TEU 2016/679, Article 16 S 1 TEU 2016/679, § 4(1) SchulG BE No

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

[applicant] (Article 4 paragraphs 1 and 2 GDPR). In this context, Defam is the controller (Article 4(7) of the GDPR). Article 6(1) of the GDPR provides that

received a response to access and deletion requests under Article 15 GDPR and Article 17 GDPR respectively, which were forwarded to Studio Colli Aniene

processing according to Article 4(2) GDPR and thus requires a legal basis according to Article 6(1) GDPR and comply with Article 5 GDPR. The controller did

under Article 15(1) GDPR with its reply from December 2019. The Court first held that the BayLfSt was a controller within the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR

the processing (article 21 of the GDPR) and the processing is necessary for freedom of expression and information (Article 17.3 of the GDPR). e - 3 plea:

A) The Controller has not respected Article 32, paragraph (1), point (a) and(b) and paragraph (2) of that article of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the protection

pursuant to Article 58 (2) (b) of the GDPR. condemns the Applicant for violating Article 5 (1) (a) of the GDPR; (b) and (c), Article 6 and Article 9. (50)

unless such media are used solely for transit purposes." This article transposes article 4 of Directive 95/46/EC, which literally states: “Applicable national

the DPA, the controller breached Article 157 (request for information and production of documents) in relation to Article 166(2) of the Code. Therefore,

14 GDPR, in Article 15 GDPR to Article 22 GDPR, and in Article 34 GDPR. The information has to be provided in a concise, transparent, intelligible manner

responsibility – article 5.2. GDPR). It must also implement all the measures necessary for this. effect (Article 24 GDPR). 6. Pursuant to Article 15 § 1 of the

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

Region Lombardia violated Article 5(1)(a)(c) GDPR due to the dissemination not being necessary as well as Article 6(1)(c)(e) GDPR due to the absence of suitable

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

place per Article 46(2) GDPR. For these violations, the DPA reprimanded the controller and ordered it to comply with the GDPR (specifically Article 46 GDPR)

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

registered letter in violation of article 15 (1) cond. 12 par. 2, 3 and 4 GDPR and c) 30,000 euros for violation of Article 25 (1) GDPR because it did not in practice

regarding access to the data (articles 5 and 4, par. 10, articles 29, 32, paragraph 4, of the Regulation and article 2-quaterdecies of the Code). For the purposes

legislator used the open clause of Article 6(1)(c) and (e) GDPR, in combination with Article 6(2) and Article 6(3) GDPR, to create a legal basis for the

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

including those relating to health (Article 4(10)). The DPA held that this constitutes a violation of Article 6(1)(e) and Article 9(2)(g). The DPA stated that

Paragraph 4 GDPR Art4 Z1 GDPR Art5 Paragraph 1 litc GDPR Art51 Paragraph 1 GDPR Art57 Paragraph 1 litf GDPR Art6 Paragraph 1 litf GDPR Art77 GDPR Art9 B-VG

stated that the request was in violation of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. First, the Court stated that pursuant to Article 843a(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)

data that was exposed fell within Article 9(1) GDPR. With this in mind, the Spanish DPA found a violation of Article 32 GDPR since the lack of security measures

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

submitted preliminary questions to the CJEU on the interpretation of Article 55(3) GDPR. The questions arose in a case where a Court Division provided journalists

Administrative Court In addition, Art. 4 Z 1 and Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. c and f GDPR are relevant. Art. 4 Z 1 GDPR reads: "Article 4 definitions For the purposes of

emergency. The data subject submitted an access request pursuant to Article 15 GDPR to Wi-Planet sas di Torri Carlo Alberto (‘controller’) after the termination

requirements of Article 34(2) and Article 33(3) GDPR. The DPA expressed serious criticism to the controller for violating Article 32(1) GDPR. Moreover, it

Pursuant to Art. 57 GDPR, the President of the Personal Data Protection Office - as a supervisory authority within the meaning of Art. 51 GDPR - monitors and

pursuant to Article 12(2) GDPR. The DPA ordered the controller to comply with the access request pursuant to Article 58(2)(c) GDPR and Article 95(1)(5) LCA

body within the meaning of Article 83(7) GDPR. In interpreting what amounts to a public authority or body under Article 83(7) GDPR, the NSS held that such

general personality rights (Article 2 (1) in conjunction with Article 1 (1) GG) of the applicant and violates Article 9 (1) GDPR. Voluntary consent (Art.

minor, the parent is not considered to be the data subject pursuant to Article 4(1) GDPR. At the same time, the parent can submit a data subject request to